The  Tariff  and 
the  Farmer 


BY  S.  PAYSON  PERRY 


The  Tariff  and  the 

Farmer 


How  it  Lessens  the  Exchange  Vakie  of  His  Products 

How  it  Subjects  Him  to  Most  Unfair 
Trade    Conditions 

The  Result 

Four  Decades  of  DecHning  Agricultural 

Prosperity 


By  S.   Pay  son   Perry 


'        • 


Worcester,    Mass. 

Press  of   F.    S.    Blanchard  &   Co. 

1908 


^ 


t^ 


u.b^ 


'"\ 


Copyright.  1908, 

By  S.  PAYSON  PERRY. 

WORCESTEE,  Mass. 


W   1  * 


1       J 


, ,    »    t  ^ 


•  '<  ■, 


CONTENTS. 


Chapter  I. 


Chapter  II. 


Chapter  Y. 


Chapter  Yl. 


The  Farmer  Protected  from  Imag- 
inary Danger 

The  Agricultural  Masses  Not  Pro- 
tected      -  -  -  . 


Chapter  III.       Less  Foreign    Demand    for  Agri- 
cultural Products 

Chapter  IY.        Less   Foreign  Demand  Intensifies 

Home   Competition  and  Lowers 
Price        -  -  -  - 


Chapter  YII. 


Chapter  YIIL 


Confiscation  Rates  of  Duties 
Greatly  Increase  the  Cost  of 
Farmers'  Supplies 

The  Farmer  Subjected  to  Most 
Unfair  Trade  Conditions. 

The  Strong  Trade  Position  of 
Manufacture        _  _  - 

The  Same  Continued.  The  De- 
fenseless Trade  Position  of 
Agriculture  _  -  . 

Four  Decades  of  Declining  Agri- 
cultural Prosperity  under  High 
Protection. 

The  National  Yiew 


9 


22 


34 


49 


61 


70 


87 


98 


^^rkA  QQ 


Contents. 


Chapter  IX. 


Chaptee  X. 


Chapter  XI. 


The  Independent  Farmer  Sinking 
to  the  Position  of  Mere  Tenant       107 

How  the  Farmer  has  Fared  in  the 
Manufacturing  Section  of  the 
Union      -  -  _  -       119 

To  what  are  National  Prosperity 
and  High  Eate  of  Wages  Due  I       134 


INTRODUCTION. 


How  TO  Make  Country  Life  More  Attractive. 

* 

This  is  the  question  the  committee  recently  appointed 
by  President  Eoosevelt  has  to  answer. 

Hon.  Emory  Washburn,  a  former  Governor  of  Massa- 
chusetts, said,  ''All  men  speak  well  of  agriculture,  but  all 
who  can  shun  it."  Why!  The  two  chief  indictments 
brought  are  the  isolation  of  the  farmer's  life  and  the 
unprofitableness  of  the  occupation. 

If  those  who  bring  the  first  charge  were  subjected  to  a 
strict  examination,  in  most  cases  we  think  it  would  be 
made  apparent  that  other  objectionable  features  were  in 
combination  with  it  that  would  largely  be  obviated  if 
crops  brought  in  a  plentiful  supply  of  money.  Money 
will  not  buy  everything,  but  a  sufficiency  will  buy  a  great 
variety  of  things  and  add  immensely  to  the  enjoyment  of 
life.  The  isolation  of  the  situation  does  not  stop  men 
from  braving  hardships  and  extreme  peril,  even  risking 
life  itself  in  the  search  for  gold.  Make  it  worth  while  in 
a  financial  way  and  plenty  of  families  will  gladly  face 
the  isolation  of  countrv  life.  Even  were  it  not  so.  Con- 
gress  is  powerless  to  provide  a  remedy. 

Is  it  in  the  power  of  Congress  to  make  the 
pursuit  of  agriculture  more  profitable?  To  a 
certain  extent,  and  in  certain  ways,  it  certainly 
is.  The  industry  has  greatly  suffered  from  the 
fact  that  its  interests    have    not    had    fair    representa- 


6  Introduction. 

tion  at  Washington.  There  the  farmer  is  conspicnous 
by  his  absence.  Advantage  has  been  taken  of  this,  and 
laws  passed  most  injurious  to  his  interests.  For  this 
our  agricultural  leaders  are  responsible.  They  have 
always  assumed  that  all  that  was  necessary  to  make  the 
industry  prosperous  was  a  scientific  knowledge  of  pro- 
duction. President  Eoosevelt  truly  says,  ''Our  atten- 
tion has  been  concentrated  almost  exclusively  on  getting 
better  farming."  ''We  hope  ultimately  to  double  the 
average  yield  of  wheat  and  corn  per  acre  .  .  .  but  it 
is  even  more  important  to  double  the  desirability,  com- 
fort and  standing  of  the  farmer's  life." 

The  President  sees  what  apparently  our  agricultural 
leaders  have  never  perceived,  that  doubling  the  yield  per 
acre,  in  other  words  "getting  better  farming,"  does  not 
necessarily  greatly  benefit  the  farmer.  The  one  surely 
benefited  is  the  consumer  of  such  products.  For  the 
result  may  be  so  large  a  surplus  that  the  money  return 
per  acre  will  be  less  than  before.  •  To  benefit  the  farmer 
the  crop  groivn  on  an  acre  must  command  a  larger  sup- 
ply of  tvhat  the  farmer  buys. 

Now  the  farmer  is  a  large  purchaser  of  manufactured 
products,  and  in  the  exchange  that  takes  place  between 
the  individuals  of  the  two  industries,  legislative  enact- 
ments have  a  most  important  bearing.  Chief  of  the  laws 
having  such  a  bearing  is  the  tariff  system.  As  most  per- 
sons well  informed  concerning  foreign  trade  know,  the 
laws  relating  to  the  tariff  are  practically  made  by  our 
manufacturers.  It  is  the  object  of  this  little  book  to 
show  that  the  effect  of  these  laws  is  to  greatly  lessen  the 
exchange  value  of  farmers'  products.  A  repeal  of  these 
laws,  or,  if  that  is  asking  too  much,  a  large  reduction  in 
rates  of  duties  on  articles  imported  which  are  similar  to 


Introduction.  7 

those  piircliased  by  our  farmers  would  much  increase 
the  profits  of  agriculture. 

Of  all  occupations,  that  of  the  farmer's  is  poorest  paid. 
(For  reasons  why,  see  chapters  VI  and  VII.)  The 
United  States  census  of  1900  indicates  that,  subtracting 
from  gross  income  there  given,  business  expenses  and 
interest  upon  capital  of  four  per  cent.,  the  net  income 
received  from  the  labor  of  the  average  farmer  and  his 
family  is  only  about  $400.  The  Labor  Bureaus  of  Sta- 
tistics in  Massachusetts  and  at  Washington  indicate  that 
the  wages  of  the  average  workman  and  his  family 
engaged  in  manufacture  are  near  twice  this  sum,  or 
about  $800  per  annum. 

Since  1900  there  is  evidence  going  to  show  that  farm- 
ers at  the  "West  are  obtaining  better  prices  for  their  prod- 
ucts. But  little,  if  any,  improvement  has  taken  place  in 
the  condition  of  the  Eastern  farmer.  It  is  even  very 
doubtful  if  he  is  as  well  off  as  before,  since  there  has  been 
a  general  rise  in  cost  of  business  and  family  supplies. 

This  book  is  a  part  of  a  much  larger  work,  to  which 
the  author  has  devoted  many  years  of  research  and 
thought.  It  is  believed  to  be  the  only  publication  in 
existence  that  gives  a  comprehensive  view  of  the  bearing 
of  the  tariff  upon  agricultural  interests.  The  author  is 
a  life-long  farmer — for  many  years  a  good  Eepublican — 
made  an  independent  by  a  study  of  the  tariff  question. 
In  doing  this  work  he  has  been  actuated  by  as  purely 
patriotic  motives  as  when  he  shouldered  a  rifle  in  the 
dark  days  of  1862. 

He  is  well  aware  that  many  persons  consider  the  tariff 
question  as  settled,  but  ' '  nothing  is  ever  settled  that  is 
not  settled  right. ' '  To  believe  that  the  present  system  of 
wrong  and  gross  oppression  will  always  continue  is  to 


8  Introduction. 

doubt  the  existence  of  a  just  Grod.  Conditions  have 
remained  much  the  same  for  more  than  forty  years, 
because  the  class,  blinded  by  party  leaders,  has  never 
given  it  consideration.  The  indications  now  are  that  the 
time  is  near  when  the  subject  will  be  taken  up  and  the 
other  side  of  the  tariff  question  will  be  heard.  No  change 
is  likely  to  come  until  the  agricultural  masses  demand  it ; 
for  it  is  true  now,  as  ever,  that  ''they  who  would  be  free 
themselves  must  strike  the  blow. ' ' 


HOW  THE   EXCHANGE  VALUE   OF 

AGRICULTURAL    PRODUCTS    IS 

LESSENED  BY  THE  TARIFF. 

CHAPTER  I. 

The  Farmer  Protected  from  Imaginary  Danger. 

In  1890,  when  a  large  increase  was  made  in  rates  of 
duties  on  manufactured  goods,  the  Republican  politicians 
sought  to  gain  the  favor  of  the  agricultural  masses  for 
the  measure  (the  McKinley  bill)  by  increasing  the  rates 
of  duties  on  agricultural  imports.  Mr.  Dingley  said: 
'  ^  The  duties  on  such  agricultural  products  as  are  shipped 
from  Canada  and  disastrously  compete  with  the  products 
of  our  farmers,  have  been  largely  increased."  Let  us 
examine  this  "disastrous"  competition. 

From  the  annual  report  of  "Commerce  and  Naviga- 
tion of  the  United  States  for  1893,"  pages  534-539,  we 
compile  the  following.  The  imports  include  both  free 
and  dutiable : 

Agricultural    Imports    from,    axd    Exports    to^    the 
Dominion  of  Canada  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending 

June  30,  1889. 

(Values  given  in  round  numbers.) 

Imports  from  Exports  to 

Canada,  Canada. 

Horses,  $3,269,000  $178,000 

All  other  animals.  1.924,000  362,000 

Eggs,  2,346,000  27,000 


10  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 


Imports  from 

Exports  to 

Canada. 

Canada. 

Hay, 

$1,082,000 

Provisions  (meats  and  dairv 

products), 

177,000 

$7,334,000 

Breadstuffs : 

Barley, 

7,719,000 

Corn  and  com  meal. 

3,696.000 

Wheat  and  wheat  flour, 

116.000 

5,307,000 

All  other  breadstuffs, 

87,000 

387,000 

Cotton,  raw, 

2,981.000 

Vegetables, 

908,000 

Miscellaneous      (hemlock     bark; 

fruits    and    nuts;    hides 

and 

skins,    other    than    fur-  skins; 

sugar  and  molasses;  wool, 

flax, 

hemp,  etc. ;  seeds ;  tobacco, 

un- 

manufactured), 

2,363,000 

2.313,000 

Totals,  $19,991,000  $22,585,000 

A  condensed,  balanced  statement  of  the  agricultural 
trade  between  the  two  countries  for  1889.  Canada  sent 
to  the  United  States  more  than  was  returned: 

Of  animals,  $4,653,000 

Of  eggs,  hay,  vegetables  and  miscellaneous  products.      4,359,000 

Total,  $9,012,000 

• 

The  United  States    sent   to    Canada  more    than    was 

returned : 

Of  provisions  (meat  and  daii^^  products),  $7,157,000 

Of  breadstuffs,  ^  1,468,000 

Of  cotton,  raw,  2,981,000 

Total,  $11,606,000 

This  trade  that  returned  a  balance  in  favor  of  the 
United  States  farmer  of  $2,594,000,  Mr.  Dingley  called 
''disastrous"  competition. 

Mr.  Dingley  stated  the  new  rates  of  duties  on  agricul- 


Farmer  Protected  from  Imaginary  Banger.  11 

tural  imports ;  many  of  these  were  from  50  to  100  per 
cent,  above  the  former  rates.  Oats  were  raised  from  10 
to  15  cents  a  bushel ;  butter  and  cheese,  from  4  cents  per 
pound  to  6  cents ;  hops,  from  8  to  15  cents  per  pound. 
None  of  these  were  of  sufficient  vakie  to  have  separate 
mention  in  the  importations.  With  one  single  exception, 
the  driblets  of  imports  were  so  small  in  comparison  with 
the  productions  of  the  same  kind  of  this  country  that 
even  had  they  not  been  balanced  by  exports,  no  general 
effect  could  possibly  have  been  produced  by  their  intro- 
duction here.  Barley  was  the  exception;  the  value  of 
that  imported  was  nearly  one-fourth  of  the  production  of 
this  nation.  But  if  the  additional  rate  of  duty  gave  at 
first  a  better  price  to  our  producers,  the  advantage  seems 
to  have  been  lost  in  a  year  or  two,  for  price  then  sank  to 
the  level  of,  or  below,  that  of  former  years. 

The  rate  of  duty  was  increased  on  wheat,  in  spite  of 
the  fact  that  neither  from  Canada  nor  from  any  other 
part  of  the  world  was  more  than  $125,000  worth  imported 
that  year  (1889)  into  the  United  States,  against  an 
exportation  abroad  of  over  $96,000,000. 

Of  provisions  (meat  and  dairy  products)  it  is  seen 
scarcely  any  were  imported  from  Canada,  and  we 
exported  to  that  country  over  $7,000,000.  Yet  the  Cana- 
dian invasion  appeared  so  alarming  in  these  products  to 
Mr.  Dingley  and  other  Eepublicans  that  the  rates  of 
duties  on  butter  and  cheese  were  raised  50  per  cent,  and 
hams  and  bacon  200  per  cent.  The  same  year  we  sent 
abroad  of  hog  products  alone  over  $66,000,000  worth, 
while  the  total  importations  of  all  meat  products  at  the 
same  time  were  but  $472,000.  The  farmer  who  cannot 
see  through  such  plain  political  trickery  as  this  cannot 
see  through  a  ladder  with  rounds  two  feet  apart ! 


12  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

To  try  to  exclude  Canadian  products  from  the  United 
States  is  mere  foolishness.  Take  wheat  to  illustrate  the 
matter.  Suppose  Canada  had  a  hundred  million  bushels 
to  export.  The  cost  is  said  to  be  about  the  same  to  send 
to  New  York  or  to  Liverpool  by  way  of  the  St.  Lawrence 
Biver.  Suppose  further  that,  because  of  our  high  duties, 
instead  of  this  increase  coming  into  the  United  States 
and  directly  competing  here,  it  goes  to  England  and  com- 
petes with  our  wheat  there.  So  long  as  we  have  a  great 
surplus  to  send  abroad,  how  much  more  will  the  Ameri- 
can farmer  get  for  his  wheat  by  meeting  the  competition 
there  than  here?  His  market  there  would  be  taken  to  the 
extent  of  the  100,000  bushels,  and  it  looks  as  if  in  conse- 
quence that  number  of  bushels  would  remain  this  side  the 
ocean. 

What  other  countries  besides  Canada  are  in  position 
to  compete  with  the  American  farmer?  Surely,  not  the 
populous  nations  of  Europe  who  are  now  receiving  the 
bulk  of  our  immense  agricultural  exports !  They  cannot 
even  supply  themselves  with  a  sufficiency  of  agricultural 
products. 

On  the  same  occasion  the  passage  of  the  McKinley  bill 
in  1890,  when  Mr.  Dingley  was  doing  his  best  to  protect 
our  farmers  from  ''disastrous"  trade  with  Canada,  we 
also  hear  from  Mr.  McKinlev.  He  was  as  much  con- 
cerned  about  the  danger  that  threatened  the  farmer  as 
Mr.  Dingley — the  tvheat  grower  he  seemed  to  have  par- 
ticularly in  mind.  He  said :  ' '  The  agricultural  condition 
of  the  country  has  received  the  careful  attention  of  the 
committee,  and  every  remedy  which  was  believed  to  be  in 
the  power  of  tariff  legislation  to  give  relief  has  been 
granted  by  this  bill.  The  depression  in  agriculture  is  not 
confined  to  the  United  States.     The  reports  of  the  Agri- 


Fanner  Protected  from  Imaginary  Danger.  13 

cultural  Department  indicate  that  this  distress  is  gen- 
eral ;  that  Great  Britain,  France  and  Germany  are  suffer- 
ing in  a  greater  degree  than  the  farmer   of   the   United 
States."     "It  has  been    asserted    in    the  views    of    the 
minority"     (Democratic    members    of    the    committee) 
' '  that  the  duty  put  on  wheat  and  other  agricultural  prod- 
ucts would  be  of  no  value  to    the   agriculturists    of   the 
United  States.     The  committee,  believing  differently,  has 
advanced  the  duty  upon  these  products.     As  we  are  the 
greatest  wheat-producing   country   in   the   world,    it    is 
habitual  to  assert,  and  it  is  believed  by  many,  that  this 
product  is  safe  from  foreign  competition.     We  do  not 
appreciate  that  while  the  United  States  last  year  raised 
490,000,000  bushels,  France  raised  316,000,000,  Italy  103,- 
000,000,  Eussia  189,000,000,  and  India  243,000,000;  and 
that  the  total  production  of  Asia,  including  Asia  Minor, 
Syria  and  Persia,  amounted  to  over  315,000,000  bush- 
els."    "Our  sharpest  competition  comes    from  Eussia 
and  India,  and  if  we  will  reflect  on  the  difference  of  the 
cost  of  labor  in  producing  wheat  in  the  United  States, 
and  in  competing  countries,  we  shall  readily  perceive  how 
near  we  are  to  the  danger  line."     "The  farmers  of  the 
United  States  have  therefore  come  to  appreciate  that  the 
time  is  already  here  when   the   American   farmer  must 
sell  his  products  in  the  market  of  the  world  in  competi- 
tion with  the  wheat  produced  by  the  lowest  priced  labor 
of  other  countries.     And  that  his  care  and  concern  must 
be  to  preserve  his  home  market,  for  he  must  of  necessity 
be  driven  from  the  foreign  one  unless  he  can  by  diminish- 
ing the  cost  of  his  productions  successfully  compete  with 
the  unequal  conditions  I  have  described. ' ' 

In  the  last  quotation   Mr.    McKinley  indicates   that  a 
change  of  condition  had  taken  place  in  regard  to  compe- 


14  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

tition  abroad  and  at  home.  But  when  was  the  time  when 
the  American  farmer  was  not  in  competition  in  foreign 
markets  with  the  lowest  priced  labor  of  other  countries  ? 
And  where  was  there  any  evidence  of  increased  danger 
of  being  driven  from  the  home  market?  To  secure  the 
support  of  farmers  for  his  measure  he  sought  to  frighten 
them  by  drawing  on  his  imagination. 

As  concerns  the  wheat  trade,  for  which  he  seemed  to  be 
particularly  anxious,  he  tells  what  the  production  was  of 
certain  countries,  but  does  not  give  the  quantities  con- 
sumed by  the  same.  The  material  point  as  to  whether  or 
not  the  wheat  trade  of  those  nations  is  likely  to  prove 
dangerous  to  American  agriculture  is  what  is  the  amount 
of  surplus.  But  of  this  he  gives  no  idea.  If  a  nation 
produces  a  billion  of  bushels,  and  all  it  can  produce  is 
consumed  by  its  people,  the  farmers  of  other  lands  have 
little  more  reason  to  fear  disastrous  trade  from  such 
source  than  as  if  that  country  were  a  desert  waste  with- 
out production  or  people.  Two  of  the  countries,  the 
amount  of  whose  productions  of  wheat  he  gave,  France 
and  Italy,  were  importers  and  not  exporters  of  wheat.  It 
is  safe  to  say  also  that  of  wheat  produced  in  Asia,  outside 
British  India,  very  little  is  exported.  Supplies  from 
British  India  are  very  uncertain,  owing  to  the  great  fam- 
ines that  often  prevail  there.  Certainly,  at  the  time 
when  Mr.  McKinley  made  his  speech,  there  was  no  reason 
for  apprehending  danger  from  India,  as  for  several  years 
there  had  been  a  falling-off  in  exportations.  Data  have 
not  been  found  for  recent  years  by  the  writer,  but  the 
report  of  ^'Commerce  and  Navigation  of  the  United 
States  for  1893 ' '  makes  this  significant  sentence  in  refer- 
ence to  wheat  and  other  breads^tuff s :  ''They  would  also 
show  that  the  United  States  need  have   little   apprehen- 


Farmer  Protected  from  Imaginary  Danger.  15 

sion  of  being  crowded  out  of  European  markets  by  Brit- 
ish India  wheat.  Apart  from  the  testimony  given  by 
trade  figures,  which  show  that  British  India  is  called 
upon  for  wheat  only  when  other  supplies  have  been 
exhausted,  we  have  the  testimony  of  experts  who  are 
almost  unanimous  in  declaring  the  inferior  quality  of  the 
Indian  product. "    » 

A  single  sentence  in  the  Statesman's  Year  Book,  1902, 
would  indicate  that  little  need  be  feared  from  wheat  pro- 
duced in  Russia,  whatever  may  have  been  the  prospect  in 
1890,  since  such  exportations  have  largely  decreased: 
"The  quantities  of  wheat  imported  from  Russia  into  the 
United  Kingdom  in  five  years  from  both  the  northern 
and  southern  ports  of  the  empire  were  as  follows :  1896, 
17,241,600  cwt.;  1897,  15,049,900  cwt.;  1898,  6,232,500 
cwt.;  1899,  2,518,200  cwt.;  1900,  4,478,300  cwt."  In  still 
another  place  the  same  authority  shows  by  a  table  that  in 
1899  and  1900  more  wheat  was  sent  from  Russia  to 
United  Kingdom  than  to  any  other  country  in  Europe, 
with  the  exception  of  France.  The  latter  nation  in  those 
years  took  nearly  double  what  the  former  took,  but  even 
here  there  was  a  large  falling-off  in  1900  from  what  was 
sent  in  1899. 

But  the  groundlessness  of  Mr.  McKinley's  fears  is  best 
shown  by  the  United  States  record  of  exportations.  In 
1888  and  1889,  the  years  immediately  preceding  the  Mc- 
Kinley  tariff,  the  percentage  of  domestic  wheat  exported 
had  fallen  from  a  previous  average  of  about  26%  to  about 
22%.  Since  then,  from  1890-1901,  eleven  years,  the 
annual  average  has  been  about  35%.  In  1900  the  total 
value  of  breadstuff  imported  was  $1,804,000 ;  exported, 
$262,744,000.  And  instead  of  sending  abroad  a  total  of 
agricultural  products  of  $630,000,000,  as  in  1890,  the  rec- 


16  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

ord  of  1906  is  over  $975,000,000.  And  this  successful 
competition  in  foreign  lands,  remember,  is  beyond  the 
guard  of  our  tariff  duties  in  the  open  field  with  all  the 
world.  Does  it  look  very  much  as  if  the  foreigner  could 
drive  the  American  farmer  from  the  home  market  under 
a  free  trade  svstem! 

Under  President  Eoosevelt's  administration.  Secre- 
tary Shaw  of  the  Treasury  Department  is  following  in  the 
footstejDs  of  Mr.  Dingley  and  Mr.  McKinley.  He  came 
out  as  an  alarmist  concerning  cattle  and  beef  in  a  speech 
made  in  the  State  of  Vermont  in  August,  1902 :  ' '  Suppose 
we  take  the  tariff  off  beef,  and  then  suppose  the  herds  of 
cattle  from  Mexico  and  South  America  are  brought  in 
here  by  the  hundred  thousand.  They  will  find  their  way 
to  the  stockyards,  and  the  butchers  will  be  compelled  to 
bid  against  the  packers  then  as  now.  The  removal  of  the 
tariff  on  live  stock  and  meat  would  not  restore  the  butch- 
ers to  business.  It  might  ruin  the  farmers."  ''The 
farmer  as  it  is  has  ample  reason  to  be  apprehensive." 

Now  it  is  easy  to  suppose  anything.  We  might  specu- 
late what  would  happen  suppose  the  moon  should  come 
down  to  the  earth.  We  think  Mr.  Shaw's  supposition  is 
a  little  more  likely  to  happen  than  this. 

Was  it  not  a  singular  time  to  apprehend  danger  to  the 
producer  of  beef,  when  there  was  such  a  scarcity,  real  or 
artificial,  that  there  was  a  general  uproar  over  the  land 
at  the  price  consumers  were  compelled  to  pay! 

But  we  turn  to  examine  the  probability  of  Mr.  Shaw's 
supposition.  To  ruin  our  farmers  engaged  in  the  pro- 
duction and  fattening  of  cattle  would  require  a  great 
invasion  indeed.  A  ''hundred  thousand"  cattle,  in  a 
country  where  there  are  over  69,000,000,  would  hardly  be 
more  than  a  drop  in  a  bucket.     But  where  is  the  immense 


Farmer  Protected  from  Imaginary  Danger.  17 

multitude  to  come  from?  A  large  portion,  according  to 
Secretary  Shaw,  is  to  come  from  South  America.  Of  all 
South  America  only  the  Argentina  Kepublic  and  Uru- 
guay are  doing  much  with  cattle,  or  are  likely  to  in  this 
generation;  in  the  remaining  portions  the  people,  or 
climate,  or  country,  or  all  together,  are  not  adapted  to  the 
business. 

The  two  divisions  mentioned,  especially  the  Argentina 
Eepublic,  have  a  good  many  cattle— together  something 
less  than  one-half  the  number  in  the  United  States.  But 
think  of  the  immense  distance  they  must  be  brought  to 
reach  us,  6000  to  8000  miles.  How  many  of  the  animals 
would  die  in  the  long  passage  through  the  hot  equatorial 
regions  ?  Or  who  would  want  to  eat  fresh  beef  killed  the 
other  side  of  the  equator! 

The  exports  of  Argentina  of  "animals  and  their  prod- 
ucts" in  1899  is  given  as  over  $115,500,000.  But  un- 
doubtedlv  much  more  than  two-thirds  of  this  consisted  of 
wool,  hides  and  skins,  and  mutton.  One  authority  gives 
the  value  of  the  exports  of  wool  that  year  as  $61,000,000 
gold ;  and  reports  also  that  2,372,969  carcasses  of  frozen 
sheep  were  exported,  and  the  value  of  hides  and  skins 
was  very  great. 

For  some  years  we  have  been  competing  with  Argen- 
tina in  the  free  English  market.  With  what  result? 
Where  she  supplied  about  $1,000,000  of  fresh  beef  in  1899 
the  United  States  put  in  over  $29,000,000 ;  and  in  1901  the 
value  of  such  exports  from  the  United  States  is  given  as 
over  $31,000,000.  In  the  latter  year  the  United  States 
sent  abroad  over  $37,000,000  of  cattle,  most  of  which 
($35,000,000)  went  to  Great  Britain;  Argentina  sent  of 
cattle  to  the  same  place  in  1899  about  $7,000,000.  The 
fact  is,  her  great  dependence  in  the  export  trade  is  on 

2 


18  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

sheep.  Nearly  $7,500,000  worth  of  sheep  was  sent  to 
Great  Britain  in  1899,  where  we  sent  abroad  but  $29,427 
to  all  the  world. 

What  has  been  said  of  Argentina  will  apply  pretty 
closely  to  Uruguay,  which  may  be  called  a  small  edition 
of  the  other. 

Now  as  to  Mexico,  which  borders  on  the  United  States 
on  the  southwest,  and  is  thus  near  to  us,  with  no  equa- 
torial regions  to  cross,  the  idea  that  she  is  likely  to  prove 
a  formidable  rival  in  cattle  and  meat  products  is  so  wild 
we  are  reminded  of  the  lines  of — 

"Ocean  into  tempest  tossed 
'  To  waft  a  feather  or  to  drown  a  fly." 

Mexico,  like  the  United  States,  is  surrounded  by  a  high 
tariff  wall.  A  ''special  exposition  bulletin"  of  a  few 
years  ago  says,  "Corn,  cereals,  meat  and  flour  of  all 
kinds  are  now  virtually  excluded  from  all  parts  of  Mexi- 
co, save  the  narrow  strip  of  country  called  the  free  zone, 
on  account  of  a  prohibitory  tariff."  Again,  ''the  impor- 
tation of  food  and  food  products  in  Mexico  is  greatly 
restricted,  owing  to  the  high  duties."  It  went  on  to  state 
that  ham,  bacon,  sausage  and  lard  pay  about  ten  cents 
per  pound  duty.  If  it  is  high  protection  that  has  made 
the  United  States  great,  enriched  the  people  and  caused 
the  payment  of  large  wages,  let  the  protectionist  explain 
why  it  has  had  no  such  effect  in  Mexico.  Why  are  her 
great  natural  resources  of  mineral  wealth  hardly  devel- 
oped at  all  ?  Why  has  not  manufacturing  activity  taken 
the  place  of  the  torpor  that  seems  to  rest  upon  her  peo- 
ple? Why  do  not  immigrants  throng  her  ports!  With 
the  same  industrial  system  credited  with  working  such 


Farmer  Protected  from  Imaginary  Danger.  19 

wonder  here,  tlie  two  countries  are  at  the  opposite  iDoIes 
of  most  that  makes  life  endurable  and  desirable. 

The  quotations  that  follow  show  the  utter  absurdity  of 
making  a  hob-goblin  of  Mexico  in  beef  competition. 
These  are  taken  from  ""Geographical  and  Statistical 
Notes  on  Mexico,"  by  Matas  Eomero,  one  of  the  best 
known  and  most  distinguished  of  that  nation.  He  was 
for  a  number  of  years  Mexican  minister  to  the  United 
States.  Such  a  writer  is  not  likely  to  represent  things  as 
worse  than  they  are. 

''Mexico  will  be  before  long  a  very  large  producer  of 
cattle  and  other  animals,  and  they  will  form  a  large  share 
of  her  exports.  Mexico  has  sent  within  two  years  about 
400,000  small,  undeveloped  cattle  to  the  United  States  at 
about  $15,  Mexican  silver,  per  head."  ($3,000,000  gold 
value.)  ''As  we  have  the  silver  standard,  all  our  public 
accounts  are  kept  in  silver,  and  that  makes  our  exports 
appear  twice  as  large  in  value  as  they  really,  when  stated 
in  the  money  of  the  United  States,  are,  while  we  give  our 
exports  in  the  value  of  the  country  whence  they 
come,  that  is,  their  gold  value.  That  has  given  the  idea 
of  a  very  large  balance  of  trade  in  favor  of  Mexico." 
"Inquiry  was  made  in  Liverpool  about  the  possibility  of 
the  Mexican  live-animal  trade  with  England,  and  it  was 
found  that  the  initial  difficulty  is  the  small  size  of  the 
Mexican  cattle,  as  cattle  weighing  1200  pounds  are  con- 
sidered small  by  the  trade  there,  and  from  900  to  1000 
pounds  is  therefore  extremely  small."  He  speaks  of  the 
desirability  of  importing  larger  cattle  for  breeding  pur- 
poses, and  adds,  "Mexico  could  export  annually  and 
easily  after  the  next  ten  years  400,000  of  fatted  cattle." 

"A  great  need  of  Mexico  is  a  reliable  supply  of  good 
and  healthful  water  through  artificial  means."  He  speaks 


20  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

of  great  loss  of  stock  through  lack  of  water,  and  shrink- 
age by  so  mnch  unnecessary  traveling  of  stock  to  water. 
''They  cannot  grow  fairly,  much  less  fatten,  and  over 
one-half  the  annual  increase  die  of  exhaustion,  while  the 
value  of  stock  lost  in  one  year  would  supply  permanent 
water  at  convenient  distances,  and  prevent  three-fourths 
of  the  loss  and  shrinkage  novv^  sustained."  "Mexico  is 
now  suffering  from  an  annual  decrease  in  rainfall,  owing 
to  the  continual  decrease  in  the  timber-bearing  area,  the 
rainfall  being  more  and  more  unequal  every  year  during 
the  past  twenty  years,  but  the  winters  are  becoming  more 
and  more  severe,  and  the  frosts  are  reaching  farther  and 
farther  south  each  year."  "Many  large  cities  through- 
out the  republic  are  without  any  certain  water  supply, 
and  many  that  have  a  sufficient  supply  show  by  their 
death-rates  that  the  supply  is  bad,  and  during  the  greater 
part  of  the  year  is  the  cause  of  widespread  disease." 

He  says  that  Indian  corn,  wheat,  oats,  barley,  all  grow 
very  well  in  the  proper  regions  of  Mexico. 

The  fauna  includes  three  species  of  large  felidse,  the 
puma  or  American  lion,  jaguar  and  ocelot;  among  the 
smaller  is  the  wildcat.  Wolves  are  common  in  the  north- 
ern states,  and  also  the  covote:  besides  which  there  are 
bears,  wild  boars  and  bisons."  "The  ophidians  are  rep- 
resented by  a  few  boas  in  the  southern  forests,  and  sev- 
eral species  of  snakes,  some  extremely  venomous,  as  the 
rattle  and  coral  snakes.  Noxious  insects  infest  the  hot 
regions  in  myriads ;  alacianes,  or  scorpions,  in  two  differ- 
ent varieties  are  everywhere  feared,  and  many  children 
were  every  year  killed  by  their  stings  in  the  city  of 
Durango  before  a  proper  antidote  was  found  and  used. 
Scolopendras,  gigantic  spiders,  tarantulas  and  mosqui- 
toes abound." 


Farmer  Protected  from  Imaginary  Danger.  21 

Snch  is  the  inviting  picture  drawn  by  one  of  the  most 
prominent  Mexicans  of  his  native  land.  Before  the  pro- 
duction and  fattening  of  cattle  can  be  carried  on  to 
such  an  extent  as  to  be  a  danger  to  the  American  farmer, 
a  change  must  be  made  to  a  larger  breed,  many  millions 
of  dollars  be  laid  out  in  providing  water,  and  dangerous 
and  pestiferous  creatures  must  be  destroyed.  Mr.  Shaw 
is  at  least  a  generation  ahead  of  time. 

A  few  facts  concerning  the  population  of  Mexico  from 
the  Statesman's  Year  Book,  1902 :  The  population  in  1900 
consisted  of  6,716,007  males  and  6,829,455  females.  Of 
the  total  population  19%  are  of  pure,  or  nearly  pure, 
white  race,  43%  of  mixed  race,  and  38%  of  Indian  race. 
Natives  descended  from  ancient  Indian  tribes,  and  speak- 
ing little  or  no  Spanish,  numbered  in  1895  1,908,707.  Of 
the  mixed  and  Indian  race  only  a  very  small  proportion 
can  be  regarded  as  civilized."  ''In  1895  10,345,899  of 
the  population  could  neither  read  nor  write;  1,782,822 
could  read  and  write;  323,336  could  only  read,  and  the 
attainments  of  39,516  persons  were  unknown. ' ' 

Matas  Eomero  states  that  the  average  annual  value  of 
live  stock  exported  for  f^jQ  years,  1891-1896,  was  $1,124,- 
560.  This  is  understood  to  be  young  animals  of  an  aver- 
age value  of  $5  to  $9.  This  is  the  present  showing  of 
one  of  the  nations  that  Mr.  Shaw  is  tremblingly  afraid 
will,  in  the  near  future,  swamp  our  markets  with  beef 
products. 


22  The  Tariff  and  the  Fanner. 


CHAPTEE  II. 

The  Agkicultueal  Masses  Not  Pkotected. 

Because  a  duty  is  named  to  be  paid  by  all  agricultural 
j)roducts  similar  to  those  grown  in  this  country,  except 
cotton,  when  imported,  many  farmers  are  under  the 
impression  that  the  value  of  their  products  is  thereby 
increased.  Now  a  duty  of  1000%  may  be  named  for  an 
article  and  the  producer  never  gain  one  cent  by  it.  All 
depends  on  whether  or  not  there  is  a  large  supply  abroad 
of  such  product  that  would  come  in  were  there  no  duty. 
A  foreign  nation  may  produce  a  $100,000,000  worth  of 
wheat,  or  corn,  or  potatoes,  or  hay,  and  all  be  reciuired  to 
feed  its  own  people  and  animals.  If  such  is  the  case,  it 
is  not  in  position  to  compete  in  our  markets.  It  is  only 
those  nations  who  have  large  surplus  supplies  whose  com- 
petition is  to  be  feared.  If  farmers  would  keep  in  mind 
that  the  United  States  is  the  world's  headquarters  for 
agricultural  products,  and  that  we  are  exporting  these  to 
almost  all  nations,  which  means  that  these  are  produced 
here  cheaper  than  abroad,  they  could  not  have  their  fears 
so  easily  excited.  If  farmers  abroad  cannot  undersell 
and  keep  out  American  goods  from  their  own  markets,  or 
if  the  quantity  they  produce  is  insufficient  to  supply  their 
own  people,  they  are  not  in  position  to  compete  in  our 
markets.  In  refuting  the  expressed  views  of  three  prom- 
inent advocates  of  protection  in  the  last  chapter^  it  was 
indicated  that  it  was  for  the  reason  just  given  why  the 
farmers  of  the  United  States  need  not  fear  the  farmers 
of  foreign  countries. 


Agricultural  Masses  Not  Protected.  23 

For  many  reasons,  such  as  the  greater  intelligence  of 
our  farmers,  tlie  greater  'natural  productiveness  of  our 
land,  the  greater  number  acres  in  possession  of  each,  the 
more  extensive  use  of  horses  and  machinery,  and  the 
facilities  by  wa}^  of  transportation  afforded  for  disposing 
of  surplus  products,  the  farmers  of  other  countries  are 
everywhere  afraid  of  the  competition  of  our  agricul- 
turists, if  not  in  their  own  home  markets,  then  in  the 
foreign  markets  they  wish  to  supply. 

Mr.  Henry  Gannett^  says :  ' '  Of  the  entire  agri- 
cultural product  of  the  world  the  United  States  pro- 
duces 23%."  ^'Farming  is  more  intensified  in  Europe 
than  in  America,  the  product  per  acre  being  probably 
twice  as  great."  ''He  (the  American)  is  enabled  by  the 
use  of  better  tools  and  more  machinery  to  work  an 
area  three  or  four  times  as  great  as  the  European  culti- 
vates. The  American  uses  machinery  in  farming  as  far 
as  possible;  the  European  scarcely  at  all."  ''For  every 
man  here  engaged  in  agriculture  a  product  valued  at  $900 
is  contributed,  while  the  average  Frenchman  produces 
but  $580,  and  the  average  German  but  $510  in  agricul- 
tural products."  For  these  reasons  we  can,  and  do,  pro- 
duce cheaper  than  most  foreigners  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  the  rate  of  wages  paid  is  from  50  to  100%  higher 
than  in  other  countries. 

The  Story  Told  by  Agricultural  Imports  and  Exports. 

"The  total  imports  of  the  products  of  agriculture  for 
the  year  1887,  free  and  dutiable,  were  in  value  $197,308,- 
240.     Of    this    sum    products    worth    $46,678,443    were 

^  Taken  from  an  article  of  Mr.  Gannett' sin  the  Forum  of  May,  1902.  Mr. 
Gannett  was  geographer  in  the  10th  and  11th  Censuses,  and  since  1882  has 
been  chief  geographer  of  the  United  States  Geological  Survey. 


24  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

admitted  free  of  duty,  and  the  remainder  paid  a  duty. 
Do  the  agriculturists  want  all  .duties  removed  and  their 
products  driven  from  this  market?"  A  quotation  from 
a  speech  made  by  Mr.  McKinley  in  the  House,  May  18, 
1888,  when  the  Mills  tariff  bill  was  under  examination. 
Here  it  is  assumed  that  the  protective  system  is  such 
an  effectual  defense  to  the  farmer  that  its  removal  would 
result  in  disaster  to  him.  Mr.  McKinley  voiced  what  pro- 
tectionists of  to-dav  would  have  our  farmers  believe: 
that  protection  bars  out  immense  quantities  of  agricul- 
tural products  that  would  break  down  our  farmers '  home 
market  if  admitted.  A  knowledge  of  the  main  facts  con- 
cerning foreign  trade  in  agricultural  products  would  do 
away  with  this  belief. 

In  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1900,  the  value  of 
agricultural  imports  was  more  than  double  what  Mr.  Mc- 
Kinley stated  them  to  be  for  1887.  If  the  quantity  then 
indicated  an  alarming  state  of  affairs,  the  danger  in 
these  later  years  would  appear  to  be  most  threatening. 
The  ^^Year  Book  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture, 
1901, ' '  gives  the  value  of  agricultural  products  both  as  to 
the  amount  imported  and  the  amount  exported  for  1900. 
In  the  following  table  the  figures  there  given  of  such 
imports  are  classified  and  condensed : 

Agricultural  Imports. 
Year  ending  June  30, 1900. 

Items.  Class  1 .  Class  2.  Class  3. 

Classified  and  condensed. 

Class  1.  Non-competing — 
Raw  silk,  etc.,  $45,330,000 

Goat  skins,  21,988,000 

Coffee,     chocolate     and 

cocoa,  58.678,000 

Jute,  manila  hemp,  sisal 

grasses,  etc.,  24,277,000 


Agricultural  Masses.  Not  Protected.  25 

Items.  Class  1.  Class  2.  Class  3. 

Bananas,  currants, 

dates,    almonds,    figs, 

cocoanuts,  etc.,  $10,697,000 

India'O,    singer,    spices, 

vanilla'^beans,       "  6,074,000 

Tea,  10,558,000 

Class  2.    Protected — 

Sheep  and  wool.  $21,626,000 

Semi-tropical    products, 

lemons,  '  oranges, 

plums,  prunes,  etc.,  8,565.000 

Rice,  rice  meal.  etc.  2,279.000 

Sugar  and  molasses,  101,141,000 

Tobacco,  unmanufactured,  13,297,000 

Class  3.  Unprotected- 
Animals   alive    (not  in- 
cluding sheep) ,  $3,166,000 
Hides,  cattle  and  other 
(not     includinsr    goat 

skins),               ^                                          •  35,948.000 

Meat  products,  ■  1,215,000 

Dairv  products,  1,814.000 

Other  animal  matter,  9,996.000 

Breadstuffs,                                                           ■  1,804.000 

Cotton,  flax  and  hemp,  10,057,000 

Vegetables,                                                     ,  2.935,000 

Other  vegetable  matter,  4,677,000 

Totals,  $177,602,000  $146,908,000     $71,612,000 

Percentage  each  class,  42.28  34.97  17.04 

In  the  table  given  in  the  Year  Book  are  items  that  are 
clearly  manufactured  products.  Why  they  are  included 
among,  and  designated,  agricultural  products  we  cannot 
explain.  The  value  of  the  total  of  these  importations  is 
$24,000,000,  or  5.71%  of  all  the  agricultural  imports  for 
that  vear. 

^Ye  divide  the  agricultural  imports  into  three  classes. 
Class  1  consists  of  articles  not  produced  at  all  in  the 


26  The  Tariff  and  the  Fanner. 

United  States,  or  only  to  an  insignificant  extent.  In  other 
words,  these  are  products  for  which  our  farmers  are  not 
in  competition.  With  the  exception  of  tea,  which  was 
dutied  that  year  though  it  has  since  been  admitted  free, 
nearly  all  the  articles  in  this  class  were  on  the  free  list. 
Protection  renders  no  assistance  to  the  farmer  here.  But 
this  class  diminishes  the  agricultural  import  list  by 
$177,602,000,  or  a  percentage  of  total  of  42.28%. 

Class  2.  These  imports  are  similar  to  those  produced 
by  a  very  small  number  of  our  farmers.  No  doubt  at  all 
about  protection  to  the  producers  of  these.  The  wool 
rj  duty  averaged  about  49%  that  year,  the  duty  on  lemons 
\1  43,  oranges  63,  rice  63,  unmanufactured  tobacco  mostly 
71  and  188,  and  sugar  nearly  74%.  But  because  a  few 
farmers  are  protected  it  does  not  follow  that  the  average 
individual  or  the  class  is — ' '  one  swallow  does  not  make  a 
summer. ' '  We  even  claim  that  the  favor  shown  to  these 
makes  it  harder  for  the  rest  of  the  class.  The  duties  on 
these  goods  undoubtedly  increased  the  cost  of  all  similar 
products  grown  in  the  United  States,  and  so  made  higher 
the  cost  of  farmers'  supplies.  If  the  writer's  memory 
,  serves  him  rightly,  when  duties  were  put  on  wool  in  1897, 
in  less  than  a  year's  time  the  price  went  up  ten  cents  a 
pound,  causing  an  advance  in  all  goods  into  which  wool 
enters.  In  1889  the  export  price  of  refined  sugar  is  given 
in  the  United  States  Statistical  Reports  as  7.6  cents  per 
pound.  In  1890  the  Eepublican  party  put  sugar  on  the 
free  list  and  the  export  price  fell  in  1892  to  4.6  cents  per 
pound.  About  the  same  fall  in  price  in  sugar  for  those 
years  took  place  in  the  New  York  market.  In  1894  and 
1895  the  price  of  hard  granulated  there  was  4.12  cents  a 
pound.  The  duty  was  again  put  on,  and  in  1900  the  price 
i  is  given  as  5.32  cents  per  pound. 


Agricultural  Masses  Not  Protected. 

These  cases  illustrate  the  effect  of  protection  of  such 
goods  as  compose  Class  2  upon  the  farmers  of  Class  3. 
Where  is  there  any  compensation  for  the  latter  for  the 
loss  that  results! 

Now  as  to  the  very  limited  extent  of  production  in 
these  lines.  The  growth  of  semi-tropical  fruits  is  con- 
fined almost  entirely  to  two  states,  California  and  Flor- 
ida, and  the  total  value  of  all  such  products  in  the  United 
States  was  but  a  little  over  $8,000,000,  while  the  value  of 
all  the  agricultural  crops  of  those  two  states  is  given  as 
over  $106,000,000.  The  value  of  all  the  wool  produced  in 
the  United  States  that  year,  1899,  the  time  the  census 
figures  for  1900  were  made,  was  $45,723,000;  lambs 
under  one  year,  $42,000,000. 

Three  states  produce  most  of  the  rice — South  Carolina, 
Georgia  and  Louisiana.  The  total  value  is  quite  insignif- 
icant in  comparison  with  most  farm  crops — $6,329,000. 

The  tobacco  crop  was  valued  at  $56,993,000;  three 
states— Kentucky,  North  Carolina  and  Virginia— are 
credited  with  $33,789,000  of  this. 

All  that  the  farmers  seem  to  get  out  of  raising  cane 
and  beets,  etc.,  for  the  making  of  sugar  is  about  $32,500,- 
000;  and  a  single  state,  Louisiana,  produces  nearly  half 
of  this.  Finally,  the  total  value  of  all  the  wool,  lambs, 
semi-tropical  fruits,  tobacco,  rice,  sugar  and  sugar  mate- 
rial produced  in  1899  (Continental  U.  S.),  farm  value, 
was  not  far  from  $192,000,000,  which  was  a  little  more 
than  4:7c  of  all  the  value  of  our  agricultural  products. 
Yet  from  this  narrow  field  the  government  gathered  from 
importations  in  1900  over  $80,000,000  revenue  money. 
(In  1906,  $94,000,000.)  Of  this  a  large  portion  over 
$57,000,000  in  1900  came  from  duties  upon  sugar. 

The  exportations  of  products  of  Class  2  were  only  to 


/ 


28  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

the  amount  of  $42,137,000,  and  of  this  over  $29,000,000 
came  from  tobacco.  The  total  value  of  Class  2  imported 
into  the  United  States  in  1900  was  $146,908,000,  or  34.97% 
of  all  agricultural  imports. 

Duties  are  nominally  levied  on  all  agricultural  prod- 
ucts that  are  similar  to  those  produced  in  the  United 
States  when  these  enter  our  ports.  Cotton  is  the  most 
important  if  not  the  only  exception.  But  what  has  chiefly 
given  color  to  the  view  that  agricultural  interests  were 
protected  has  been  this  4%  interest.  The  producers  of 
this  insignificant  fraction  of  agricultural  production, 
such  as  are  mentioned  in  Class  2,  have  made  noise  enough 
to  be  what  they  have  represented  themselves  to  be,  the 
agricultural  community.  In  this  respect  they  resemble 
that  interesting  but  not  very  valuable  creature,  the  coy- 
ote or  prairie  wolf.  It  is  said -when  a  few  of  these  are 
around  a  camp,  the  volume  and  variety  of  sound  is  so 
great  that  a  tenderfoot  can  hardly  be  convinced  that  he  is 
not  surrounded  bv  a  multitude.  It  is  a  case  where  the 
tail  seems  to  wag  the  dog. 

Outside  Class  2,  who  ever  heard  of  farmers  organized 
to  advance  their  interests  in  the  political  field!  The  two 
of  these  most  heard  from  are  the  growers  of  wool  and 
tobacco.  The  latter  received  greater  public  attention  in 
1902  from  the  resignation  of  the  President  of  its  associa- 
tion, Mr.  Frey.  The  selfish  near-sightedness  of  his  asso- 
ciates concerning  tariff  legislation  was  more  than  he 
could  endure. 

For  many  years  the  wool-growers  have  made  them- 
selves felt  in  Congress,  undoubtedly  making  a  greater 
uproar  over  their  sheep  interests  than  has  been  made  by 
all  other  farmers  put  together.  These  men  are  respon- 
sible, by  reason  of  high  duties  on  raw  wool,  for  more  than 


Agricultural  Masses  Not  Protected.  29 

half  the  outrageous  rates  of  duties  levied  on  manufac- 
tures of  woolen,  the  average  rate  in  1900  being  over  91%. 

Class  3.  The  Unprotected.  These  imports,  as  far  as 
they  go,  are  similar  to  those  produced  by  the  great  mass 
of  farmers.  This  division  of  farmers  includes  all  en- 
gaged in  agriculture  that  are  not  indicated  in  the  small 
circle  of  Class  2.  Let  us  try  to  realize  something  of  the 
vast  interests  and  persons  this  division  represents.  The 
value  of  their  products  in  1899,  census  year,  was  $4,717,- 
069,973  less  the  value  of  products  of  the  farmers  indi- 
cated in  Class  2,  $192,000,000.  The  division  includes 
those  who  grow  the  great  grain  crops,  corn,  wheat,  oats 
and  barley ;  all  those  engaged  in  the  raising  or  fattening 
of  horses,  cattle  and  hogs ;  the  producers  of  hay  and  for- 
age, of  cotton,  of  apples,  small  fruits,  and  vegetables; 
also  the  persons  engaged  in  the  dairy,  poultry  and  eggs 
business,  together  with  the  growers  of  many  other  kinds 
of  products  of  minor  importance.  We  should  say  that 
the  farmers  whose  chief  interest  lay  in  this  direction 
would  number  over  5,000,000  or  a  total  of  5,700,000. 

The  total  sum  of  agricultural  imports  reported  by  the 
Department  of  Agriculture  for  1900  was  $120,139,288. 
About  83%  of  these  have  been  accounted  for,  and  so  far 
no  protection  has  been  discovered  for  the  agricultural 
masses.  Whatever  there  is  must  come  in  this  the  remain- 
ing 17%.  The  value  of  imports.  Class  3,  was  only  $71,612,- 
000,  and  of  this  amount  $32,853,000  was  on  the  free  list, 
leaving  the  value  of  the  dutied  portion  but  $38,759,000. 

The  matter  sifts  down  to  this:  that  the  agricultural 
masses,  save  a  small  fraction  of  4%,  were  protected  only 
to  the  extent  of  less  than  one-tenth  of  the  total  importa- 
tion of  agricultural  products  in  1900. 

The  table  given  in  this  chapter  shows  clearly  what  the 


30  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

imports  of  Class  3  are,  with  the  exception  of  two  con- 
densed items.  The  first  of  these  is  "Other  animal  mat- 
ter." The  products  that  chiefly  make  up  this  item  are 
bristles,  crude;  feathers  and  down,  crude;  hair;  glue; 
hide  cuttings  and  other  glue  stock;  grease;  bones  and 
hoofs.  "Other  vegetable  matter"  is  the  second  con- 
densed item.  Its  parts  are  made  up  principally  of  hay, 
hops,  nursery  stock  and  seed. 

How  pitifully  small  the  value  of  the  importations  of 
Class  3  look  when  compared  with  home  production.  The 
former  seem  little  more  than  a  drop  in  a  full  bucket. 
"Animals  alive,  not  including  sheep, "imports  $3,166,000; 
value  of  the  same  in  the  United  States,  $3,022,975,000. 
"Meat  products,"  imports  $1,215,000;  value  slaughtered 
in  the  year  the  census  was  taken,  1899,  nearly  $190,000,- 
000.  "  Breadstuff s,"  imported  $1,804,000;  grown  in  the 
United  States  in  one  year  $1,478,000,000.  "Dairy  prod- 
ucts," imports  $1,814,000;  produced  in  the  United  States 
$472,000,000.  And  so  on  throughout  the  list.  What  pos- 
sible effect  could  the  slight  values  imported  have? 

Note  how  insignificant  is  the  revenue  derived  by  gov- 
ernment from  importations  of  Class  3  in  1900 :  animals, 
in  round  numbers,  $883,000;  breadstuffs,  $377,000;  pro- 
visions, including  meat  and  dairy  products,  $920,000; 
vegetables,  $1,042,000.  Compare  with  these  figures  the 
revenue  derived  from  the  importation  of  manufactured 
goods :  cotton  in  1900,  $22,000,000 ;  iron  and  steel,  $7,800,- 
000;  leather  and  manufactures  of,  $4,600,000;  woolen 
goods,  $14,000,000.  The  revenue  derived  by  government 
from  all  manufactured  goods  imported  ready  for  con- 
sumption was  between  $90,000,000  and  $100,000,000. 

With  the  facts  before  us  showing  to  what  an  extremely 
small  extent  protection  is  thrown  over  the  articles  pro- 


Agricultural  Masses  Not  Protected.  31 

duced  by  tlie  great  mass  of  our  farmers,  liow  absurd 
sounds  the  question  propounded  by  Mr.  McKinley:  ^'Do 
the  agriculturists  want  all  duties  removed  and  their  prod- 
ucts driven  from  this  market!'' 

But  it  will  be  said  that  the  insignificant  amount  of 
imports  of  Class  3  comes  from  these  being  barred  out  by 
the  tariff  system.  Duties,  however,  of  far  higher  rates 
do  not  prevent  large  importations  of  manufactured 
goods.  The  explanation  here  is  that  the  prices  of  manu- 
factured goods  in  this  country  have  been  lifted  to  a  high 
artificial  elevation,  this  giving  opportunity  for  similar 
goods  coming  in  over  high  tariff  bars.  The  case  of  agri- 
cultural products.  Class  3,  is  entirely  different.  Here 
the  current  of  trade  flows  in  great  volume  outward.  Over 
$761,000,000  of  these  products  found  a  market  beyond 
our  shores  in  1900,  nearlv  twentv  times  the  size  of  the 
dutied  inflow.  More  than  half  of  this  great  value  goes  to 
Great  Britain.  What  is  the  significance  of  this!  Great 
Britain  is  the  centre  of  the  world's  market  for  such  prod- 
ucts and  they  are  freely  admitted  to  her  ports.  Here  the 
farmer  of  the  United  States,  of  Canada,  of  South  Amer- 
ica, of  Australia,  of  Africa,  and  of  Europe  all  come  in 
competition.  With  what  result!  That  the  United  States 
farmer  successfully  competes  for  the  trade  of  Great  Brit- 
ain to  the  extent  annually  of  from  $300,000,000  to  $400,- 
000,000.  The  other  half  of  these  agricultural  exports 
from  the  United  States  goes  to  nations  where  in  almost, 
if  not  every  case,  the  home  farmer  is  protected  by  high 
duties.  Now  if  these  products  in  vast  quantities  can  be 
carried  abroad  1000,  2000,  3000  miles,  and  at  much  ex- 
pense and  with  every  disadvantage  successfully  compete, 
how  can  the  foreigner  with  the  additional  expense  of 
seeking  a  market  here  drive  our  farmers  from  the  home 
market  under  free  trade  conditions! 


32  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

If  there  is  any  nation  in  position  to  compete  with  our 
farmers,  it  is  Canada;  and  it  is  from  here  that  most  of 
our  agricultural  imports  of  Class  3  come,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  hides  and  cotton.  To  show  how  absurd  is  fear  of 
the  Canadian  farmer,  we  give  the  totals  of  the  various 
agricultural  products  imported  from  and  exported  to 
Canada  for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1906 : 

United  States  Ageicultukal  Tkade  with  Canada. 


Imports  from 

Exports  to 

Canada. 

Canada. 

Animals, 

$1,710,386 

$4,703,682 

Breadstuffs, 

384,691 

5,525,081 

Cotton,  unmanufactured, 

9,970 

7,778,767 

Fruits  and  nuts, 

230,902 

1,741,919 

Hay, 

501,849 

93,141 

Hides  and  skins,  other  than  fur  skins. 

3,479.450 

101,565 

;\Ieat  and  dairy  products, 

84,166 

3,095,168 

Seeds, 

826,900 

1,128.234 

Tobacco,  leaf, 

208,013 

1,379,734 

Vegetables, 

529,675 

95,694 

Totals,  $7,966,002     $25,642,985 

Here  it  is  seen  the  American  farmer  is  sending  three 
times  the  value  of  products  to  Canada  that  the  Canadian 
farmer  is  sending  to  the  United  States.  Over  $25,000,000 
worth  of  our  agricultural  products  cross  the  line  and  are 
sold  in  the  Canadian's  home  market.  Most  if  not  all  of 
these,  we  believe,  pay  a  Canadian  duty.  If  they  can  be 
sold  there,  with  a  tax  the  Canadian  farmer  does  not  have 
to  pay,  why  does  the  farmer  of  the  United  States  need  to 
be  protected  from  the  Canadian  farmer  in  our  markets? 

Since  writing  the  above  it  has  occurred  to  the  mind  of 
the  writer  that  opponents  might  urge  that  the  story  of  a 
single  year's  imports  and  exports  was  insufficient  data  to 


Agricultural  Masses  Not  Protected.  33 

establish  what  is  claimed.  This  objection  is  met  by  giv- 
ing the  result  of  the  classification  of  agricultural  imports 
for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1906,  made  from  the  Year 
Book  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture  of  that  date. 
^'Forest  products''  are  not  included  in  this  classification; 
these  were  not  returned  in  the  Year  Book  of  1901  as  agri- 
cultural imports  and  exports.  This  is  a  recent  innova- 
tion.   We  give  the  totals  in  round  numbers : 

Class  1.     Non-competing  imports,  $246,159,000  44% 

Class  2.     Protected  imports,  158,238,000  28% 

Class  3.     Competing  imports,  103,901,000  19% 

Manufactured  imports,  48,792,000 


The  agricultural  import  trade  with  foreign  lands  was 
far  larger  than  in  1900,  but  the  percentage  of  each  class 
varies  hut  little  from  the  percentage  found  in  1900.  And 
so  we  are  sure  will  be  the  result,  no  matter  what  year  is 
examined. 

It  is  not  the  taritf  that  protects  the  farmer.  He  needs 
no  protection  from  outside  competition,  for  he  can  pro- 
duce cheaper  than  his  foreign  rivals. 

To  sum  up  the  lesson  of  the  chapter :  (a)  In  1900  the 
dutied  imports  similar  to  those  produced  by  the  great 
mass  of  farmers  comprised  less  than  one-tenth  of  the 
total  of  agricultural  importations,  (b)  Imports  of  agri- 
cultural products.  Class  3,  have  not  been  kept  out  by  the 
tariff.  Where  the  great  current  of  trade  flows  outward 
the  most  exorbitant  rates  of  duties  can  have  no  effect. 


34  The  Tariff  and  the  Fanner. 


CHAPTER  III. 

Less  Foreigx  Demand  for  Agricultural  Products. 

AVe  have  met  and  refuted  the  claim  that  farmers  profit 
bv  "protection."  "We  now  advance  to  the  next  position, 
which  is  that  the  system  is  most  disastrous  to  agricul- 
tnral  interests. 

In  the  United  States  the  trade  interests  of  agriculture 
and  manufacture  are  antagonistic  in  the  highest  degree. 
This  must  be  the  case  from  the  industrial  relations  they 
bear  to  each  other.  The  farmer  buvs  what  the  manu- 
facturer  produces  and  sells,  and  those  engaged  in  manu- 
facture buy  what  the  farmer  produces  and  sells.  Here 
is  a  double  relation — each  buvs  of  the  other  and  sells  to 
the  other.  When  from  the  foundation  of  the  world 
were  the  trade  interests  of  buver  and  seller  ever  the 
same? 

In  this  chapter  we  consider  the  effect  of  protection 
upon  the  farmer's  foreign  market. 

The  famous  report  of  Secretary  Walker  made  in  18-15 
bears  upon  this  point.  The  following  quotations  are  from 
that  document:  ''It  seems  strange  that  while  the  profit 
on  agriculture  varies  from  1  to  8%,  that  of  manufacture 
is  more  than  double.  The  reason  is  that  whilst  the  high 
duties  secure  nearly  a  monopoly  of  the  home  market  to 
the  manufacturer,  the  farmer  and  planter  are  deprived 
to  a  great  extent  of  the  foreign  market  by  those  duties. 
The  farmer  and  planter  are  to  a  great  extent  forbidden 
to  buy  in  the  foreign  market  and  confined  to  the  domestic 


Less  Foreign  Demand  for  Products.  35 

articles  enlianced  in  price  by  tlie  duties."  "The  farmer 
and  planter  are  asked  to  sacrifice  the  markets  of  the 
world,  containing  a  population  of  eight  hundred  mil- 
lions." 

Mr.  Stanwood  in  his  book,  ''American  Tariff  Contro- 
versies in  the  Nineteenth  Century, ' '  quotes  the  above  and 
much  more,  and  disputes  the  position.  In  closing  his  re- 
marks, which  seem  to  us  weak  and  lacking  in  i^oint,  he 
adds,  "If  this  view  of  the  subject  be  accepted,  it  follows 
that  the  tariff  affected  in  no  wav  the  amount  of  Ameri- 
can  produce  which  could  be  or  was  sold  abroad;  and  the 
allegation  of  Secretary  Walker  that  it  had  a  tendency  to 
exclude  the  farmer  and  planter  from  the  foreign  market 
falls." 

Taking  the  export  record,  let  us  see  whose  allegation 
falls,  and  also  whose  view  is  sustained  in  later  years. 

From  1827  to  1831,  inclusive,  the  per  cent,  imposed  on 
dutiable  imports  averaged  higher  than  any  other  five  con- 
secutive years  in  our  history  up  to  1865,  the  per  cent. 
being  42.9.  Domestic  exports  (merchandise,  consisting 
chiefly  of  agricultural  products)  were  valued  in  round 
numbers  for  those  years,  respectively,  as  follows : 
$57,800,000,  $49,900,000,  $55,100,000,  $58,500,000,  and 
$59,200,000.  The  gain  under  the  high  duties  is  barely 
perceptible. 

In  1833  the  compromise  tariff  act  went  into  effect  with 
its  reduction  in  the  rates  of  duties,  and  at  once  the  value 
of  exports  rapidly  increased.  In  three  years,  in  1836,  the 
amount  rose  to  $106,200,000.  For  two  years  the  panic  of 
1837  caused  a  fall  in  value,  but  the  four  years  that  suc- 
ceeded these  show  an  annual  average  of  $102,000,000; 
a  vast  increase  in  value  over  the  exportations  of  1827- 
1831. 


36  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

Then  came  tlie  higher  duties  of  the  protective  tariff  of 
1842-46,  when  exports  annually  averaged  about  $94,000,- 
000. 

But  under  the  low  revenue  duties  of  the  tariffs  of  1846 
and  1857  the  value  of  exjjorts  bounded  up  from  $101,700,- 
000  in  1846  to  $316,200,000  in  1860— a  most  marvelous 
increase;  a  percentage  of  gain  in  trade  which  our  com- 
merce has  rarely,  if  ever,  matched.  AVith  the  export 
record  before  him,  how  could  Mr.  Stanwood  come  to  the 
conclusion  he  did! 

That  most  of  this  gain  was  in  agricultural  products  is 
evident  from  data  furnished  by  the  American  Almanac 
for  1888,  page  26:  "Total  exports  of  agricultural  prod- 
ucts," 1850,  $123,800,000;  1860,  $295,000,000.  Of  these 
values  raw  cotton  comprised  the  chief  part,  in  the  former 
year  nearly  $72,000,000  and  in  the  latter  about  $192,000,- 
000.  In  the  exportations  of  1850-60  the  products  of  the 
West  cut  a  comparatively  small  tigure.  Her  great  stores 
of  provisions,  which  in  later  years  swelled  to  vast  pro- 
portions, at  this  period  were  but  little  drawn  upon.  The 
railroad  system  had  penetrated  but  a  small  part  of  her 
territory. 

T'lien  came  the  Civil  War  with  its  interruption  of  busi- 
ness, chauging  the  channels  of  industry.  The  young  men 
were  swept  from  the  farms  into  the  army  and  into  the 
manufacturing  centres.  The  South  could  no  longer  send 
its  cotton  abroad.  The  country  could  but  little  more  than 
supply  its  own  demands  for  provisions  for  man  and 
beast.  For  these  reasons  the  value  of  agricultural  exports 
for  several  years  was  at  a  low  point.  Nor  for  some  years 
after  1870  had  agriculture  so  far  recovered  from  the 
effects  of  the  war — the  destruction  and  demoralization 
wrought  at  the  South,  and  the  high  prices  caused  by  the 


Less  Foreign  Demand  for  Products.  37 

desertion  of  the  farms  for  the  army  and  for  the  large 
rewards  reaped  in  the  manufacturing  centres — as  to  per- 
mit of  drawing  fair  conckisions  in  regard  to  the  export 

trade. 

Still  another  phase  has  to  be  taken  into  account  in 
drawing  such  conclusions;  we  indicate  this  by  the  ques- 
tion—when did  retaliatory  tariffs  begin  to  operate? 

"The  Statesman's  Year  Book  of  1902,"  page  588,  says, 
"Since  1879  Germany  has  been  protectionist  in  her  com- 
mercial policy."  "Commerce  and  Navigation  of  the 
United  States,  1893,"  page  111,  shows  that  France  began 
to  increase  the  rate  of  duties  on  wheat  in  1883.  For  a 
few  preceding  years  they  had  been  at  about  2%.  These 
were  now  increased  year  by  year  until  in  1888  they  stood 

at  22.81%. 

Mr.  D.  A.  Wells  in  his  "Economic  Changes"  states 
that  "Russia  commenced  raising  her  duties  on  imports  in 
1877,  and  has  continued  to  do  so  until  the  Eussian  tariff 
at  the  present  time"  (book  copyrighted  in  1889)  "is  in  a 
great  degree  prohibitory. "  "  Italy  and  Austria-Hungary 
entered  upon  their  reactionary  policy  in  1878 ;  Germany 

in  1879;  France  in  1881 ;  the  Dominion  of  Canada  in 

1879  and  1887 ;  Belgium  and  Brazil  in  1887."     Mr. 

Wells  says,  "As  the  existing  restrictions  on  commercial 
intercourse  within  recent  years  have  not  been  all  imposed 
at  one  time,  but  progressively,  and  as  their  influence  has 
accordingly  been  gradual,  the  world  does  not  seem  to 
have  as  yet  fully  appreciated  the  extent  to  which  the  ex- 
change of  products  between  nations  has  been  thereby 
interrupted  or  destroyed.  Germany,  by  repeated  enact- 
ments since  1879,  has  imposed  almost  prohibitory  duties 
on  the  importation  of  wheat.  Belgium  prevents  the  im- 
portation of  cattle  and  meat ;  France,  of  pork  and  pork 


38  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

products."  ^^Tlie  avowed  policy  of  the  United  States  has 
for  years  been  to  prohibit  or  obstruct  trade  on  the  part 
of  her  citizens,  in  respect  to  many  articles,  with  the  citi- 
zens of  all  foreign  countries ;  and  with  this  examjDle,  and 
in  part  from  a  spirit  of  retaliation,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  objective  of  much  of  the  restrictive  commercial 
legislation  of  other  countries  in  recent  years  has  been  the 
United  States — a  policy  which  has  notably  affected  the 
agricultural  supremacy  of  the  latter  country  in  the 
world's  markets;  the  exports  from  the  United  States, 
comparing  1888  with  1881,  of  cattle,  having  declined  24.5 
in  quantity  and  19%  in  value:  of  hog  products  43.3  in 
value,  and  of  dairy  products  over  50%  in  value.  The  de- 
cline in  the  value  of  the  exi3orts  of  the  United  States  to 
France  has  been  especially  noteworthy,  namely,  from  a 
value  of  $99,000,000  in  1880  to  $40,000,000  in  1886,  and 
$37,780,000  in  1888." 

From  these  quotations  from  D.  A.  Weils  and  other 
authorities  it  is  evident  that  about  1880  the  nations  began 
to  pay  us  back  in  our  own  coin.  In  1880  and  1881  the 
exportations  of  agricultural  products  were  unusually 
large,  so  it  seems  more  fair  to  take  the  average  value  of 
six  years  as  a  basis  for  computation.  The  average  of  the 
years  1878  to  1883,  inclusive,  is  $620,000,000.  Glancing 
along  the  record  from  1880  it  is  seen  that  only  six  times 
was  this  value  of  agricultural  exports  exceeded  clear  up 
to  1898.  These  years  were  1881,  1890,  1891,  1892,  1894 
and  1897.  The  average  value  of  the  six  years  1892-1897, 
inclusive,  was  about  $641,000,000;  the  last  year,  1897, 
$683,000,000 ;  in  1880,  $685,000,000.  Under  low  rates  of 
duties,  1850-1860,  eleven  years,  the  percentage  of  gain  in 
agricultural  exports  was  138%.  In  eighteen  or  twenty 
years  of  high  protective  duties  hardly  any  gain  in  value 


Less  Foreign  Demand  for  Products.  39 

at  all.  To  this  time  no  reference  is  made  in  Eepublican 
platforms ;  but  when,  after  1897,  for  several  years  came  a 
great  increase  in  the  volume  of  agricultural  exports,  pro- 
tectionists credited  the  result  to  their  system.  If  the  fat 
years  were  due  to  this  system,  why  not  the  lean  years? 
Can  the  different  results  be  laid  to  unpropitious  events? 
Let  the  man  who  denies  that  the  tariff  affects  the  export- 
ation of  agricultural  products  answer. 

Mr.  Stanwood  says:  ''Now  one  of  the  most  striking 
developments  of  the  quarter  of  a  century  from  1870  to 
1895  was  a  vast  extension  of  the  area  of  production,  and 
consequently  of  the  markets  for  buying  and  selling.    Yet 
this   extension  was  only  an  intermediate  cause   of  the 
great  economic  and  industrial  upheaval.     It  was  itself 
caused,  or  at  least  made  possible,  by  an  increase  in  the 
means  of  communication  to  a  degree  never  witnessed  in 
any  like  period  of  the  world's  history.    A  statement  that 
the  tonnage  of  steam  shipping  engaged  in  international 
trade  increased  more  than  five-fold  in  the  twenty-five 
years  is  impressive ;  but  it  fails  to  convey  an  idea  of  the 
enlarged  facilities  for  the  transportation  of  the  products 
of  all  the  continents  to  the  wholesale  marts  of  Europe 
and  America. "    ' '  Consider  what  has  taken  place  on  land, 
particularly  in  this  country.    The  railroad  mileage  of  the 
United  States  was  more  than  tripled  during  the  period. 
What  is  more  important,  the  mileage  of  the  northern 
states   and   territories  west   of  the  Missouri   increased 
from  12,000  to  78,000  miles.    It  is  not  an  exaggeration  to 
say  that  the  few  trunk  railway  lines  which  constituted  the 
entire  mileage  of  that  vast  region  in  1870  would  have 
been  of  little  value  in  bringing  to  market  the  produce  of 
the  region   had  it  been  inhabited  by  a  producing  com- 
munity.   But  in  the  ensuing  quarter  century  so  much  of 


40  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

the  region  as  is  capable  of  raising  surplus  crops  lias  been 
covered  with  a  network  of  railways,  giving  ever-increas- 
ing facilities  in  the  number  and  speed  of  trains,  and  aug- 
mented benefits  in  the  form  of  greatly  reduced  freight 
charges.  The  result  has  been  a  rapid  settlement  of  the 
countrv.  That  now  covered  bv  the  fourteen  states  of  the 
great  Northwest,  from  Kansas  to  Washington,  had  an 
aggregate  population  of  less  than  two  millions  in  1870; 
in  1890  they  had  more  than  seven  millions ;  m  1900  nearly 
nine  millions." 

''The  settlement  of  the  agricultural  land  of  the  North- 
west has  brought  about  a  greatly  augmented  production 
of  food,  a  shifting  of  the  centre  of  food  production,  and  a 
new  competition  in  food  markets.  Accompanying  and 
promoting  these  results  has  been  a  prodigious  increase 
in  the  efficiencv  and  the  use  of  asTicultural  machinerv." 

Most  of  the  above  description  of  the  changes  that  took 
place  from  1870  to  1900  on  land  relates  to  only  fourteen 
states.  Mr.  Stanwood  does  not  here  refer  to  the  great 
changes  that  took  place  in  many  others  of  what  old- 
fashioned  folks  still  call  western  states,  those  east  of  the 
Mississippi  Eiver,  or  to  the  southern  states.  Concerning 
the  latter,  now  included  in  the  two  general  divisions  of 
south  Atlantic  and  south  central  states,  it  used  to  be 
said  that  it  was  mainly  devoted  to  the  raising  of  cotton. 
Now,  not  only  has  the  highest  quantity  of  cotton  raised 
before  the  war  been  doubled,  but,  besides,  agricultural 
produce,  consisting  of  corn,  wheat,  oats,  hay  and  forage, 
meat,  vegetables,  tobacco,  orchard  and  forest  products, 
etc.,  are  raised  to  the  value  of  $984,000,000,  a  sum  some- 
thing less  than  three  times  the  value  of  cotton  produced 
in  1899. 

In  regard  to  facilities  for  producing  crops  and  trans- 


Less  Foreign  Demand  for  Products.  41 

porting  mercliandise,  as  concerns  most  products,  it  is 
evident  the  change  was  so  great  as  to  present  the  appear- 
ance of  a  new  world  since  the  time  1850-60.  The  average 
cost  of  sending  a  bushel  of  wheat  from  Chicago  to  New 
York  in  1858,  all  way  by  rail,  is  given  as  over  thirty-eight 
cents.  In  1870  the  charge  was  twenty-six  cents;  in  1898 
but  twelve  cents.  This  means  a  large  further  reduction 
in  cost  of  getting  grain  from  the  farms  to  Chicago.  In- 
stead of  at  some  times  and  in  some  places  burning  corn 
for  fuel  because  the  cost  of  reaching  the  market  was  too 
great,  the  surplus  is  now  sent  on  for  consumption.  In- 
stead of  corn,  oats,  and  the  refuse  of  wheat  after  the 
flour  has  been  extracted  being  the  main  reliance  at  the 
West  in  the  feeding  of  live  stock,  hay  now  is  largely  sub- 
stituted. The  production  of  dairy  products  to  a  great 
extent,  of  vegetables  and  of  fruits,  has  lessened  per  capita 
the  consumption  of  wheat  and  meat  by  the  western  peo- 
ple. In  these  various  ways  the  surplus  of  exportable 
products  has  been  largely  increased. 

Now  with  all  the  changes  that  have  taken  place,  the 
vast  increase  in  area  of  production,  and  in  the  number 
of  persons  so  engaged,  with  much  improved  appliances; 
with  cost  of  carriage  from  the  farms  to  Chicago,  from 
Chicago  to  New  York,  and  from  New  York  to  Liverpool 
greatly  decreased,  it  is  exceedingly  strange  that  from 
1878-1883  to  1892-1897  there  was  almost  no  increase  in 
the  value  of  total  agricultural  exports ! 

Again,  Mr.  Stanwood  says  that  the  idea  is  erroneous 
'^that  sentiments,  national  friendliness,  a  desire  for  reci- 
procity, rather  than  necessity,  price,  and  hard-headed 
business  considerations,  regulate  the  purchases  of  a  na- 
tion, particularly  purchases  of  articles  of  food.  Accord- 
ing to  modern  ways  of  trade,  the  person  who  sells  flour 


42  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

or  cotton  or  pork  to  be  sent  abroad  is  rarely  or  never  the 
person  who  buys  silk  or  wine  or  crockery  to  be  imported. 
They  are  not  only  not  the  same  persons  but  they  have  no 
business  relations  with  each  other,  and  their  several  acts 
are  not  mutually  dependent,  since  neither  knows  what  the 
other  has  done,  is  doing,  or  is  about  to  do.  Each  trans- 
acts his  own  business.  The  one  sells  what  he  can  and 
receives  a  foreign  credit  which  he  sells  to  a  banker ;  the 
other  buys  what  he  thinks  he  can  sell  at  a  profit,  and  buys 
a  foreign  credit  with  which  to  pay  for  his  purchases. 
The  aggregate  is  the  foreign  trade  of  the  country  and  is 
the  resultant  of  a  great  number  and  a  great  variety  of 
individual  acts,  each  dictated  by  the  selfish  motive  of  the 
person  performing  it,  and  in  no  sense  and  to  no  degree 
by  a  consideration  of  the  public  welfare." 

No  exceptions  are  taken  to  these  statements,  but  the 
bearing  on  the  point  he  is  striving  to  maintain  is  not  very 
obvious :  namely,  that  excessive  taxation  of  imports  has 
no  ''tendency  to  exclude  the  farmer  and  planter  from 
foreign  markets."  Those  who  know  much  about  foreign 
trade  are  well  aware  that  it  is  between  the  individuals  of 
different  nations,  each  moved  by  the  desire  of  gain  and 
with  no  regard  for  the  "public  welfare."  As  he  says, 
"hard-headed  business  considerations  regulate  the  pur- 
chases of  a  nation."  Now  what  are  these  "hard-headed 
business  considerations"  which  determine  the  direction 
that  foreign  trade  will  take  ?  An  exporter  of  our  agricul- 
tural products  studies  the  situation.  He  ascertains  as 
nearly  as  possible  what  price  the  article  he  has  to  offer 
will  bring  in  the  United  Kingdom,  France,  Germany,  or 
at  any  point  to  which  he  has  a  mind  to  send.  .The  various 
items  of  cost  involved  in  exporting  are  computed.  In 
this  reckoning  the  very  largest  item  of  cost  may  be  the 


Less  Foreign  Demand  for  Products.  43 

duties  levied  on  such  goods,  which  are  imports  in  other 
lands.  This  item  may  exceed  all  other  costs  put  together, 
and  be  so  large  as  to  cause  a  certain  loss  if  such  goods 
are  sent  to  some  nations.  The  exporter's  examination  of 
tariff  charges  will  show  that  all,  or  nearly  all  nations, 
save  the  United  Kingdom,  impose  duties  on  American 
products,  often  to  the  point  of  prohibition.  In  conse- 
quence, that  small  free  trade  country,  hardly  more  than 
a  spot  in  extent  on  the  world's  big  map,  annually  takes 
half  or  more  of  our  agricultural  exports.  Is  not  this  fact 
strong,  presumptive  evidence  that  these  hostile  tariffs  of 
other  lands  (generally  recognized  as  retaliatory  for  our 
own  high  duties)  exclude  our  farmers'  products  from 
those  nations! 

Mark,  too,  the  effect  that  the  free  trade  s^^stem  has  had 
on  the  industry  of  the  United  Kingdom.  Agriculture  in 
consequence  has  become  unprofitable.  To  a  large  extent 
the  people  have  been  driven  into  manufacture  or  into 
mercantile  pursuits.  In  other  words,  free  trade  has 
given  our  farmers  a  far  larger  market  there,  and  the 
same  cause  would  produce  similar  results  in  other  na- 
tions. 

There  is  another  ''hard-headed  business  considera- 
tion" which  causes  a  loss  of  trade  to  our  farmers.  When 
the  exporter  of  any  foreign  land  is  determining  with 
what  country  he  will  have  dealings,  he  is  likely  to  find 
that  some  grades  of  every  class  of  manufactured  goods 
cannot  be  sent  to  the  United  States  because  of  our  heavy 
taxation  of  imports.  A  market  is  found  for  this  portion 
in  other  joarts  of  the  world.  Often  this  will  be  an  agri- 
cultural country.  Well,  when  the  cargo  is  discharged  the 
next  step  is  to  load  for  the  return  voyage.  Whether  that 
foreign  exporter  is  in  the  United  Kingdom,  or  in  France, 


44  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

or  Germany,  the  first-named  country  is  right  in  the  path 
of  the  vessel  on  the  return  trip.  And  as  that  nation  is 
the  world's  market  for  agricultural  products,  this  class 
of  merchandise  is  likely  to  furnish  a  return  cargo.  So 
far  as  this  is  made  up  of  products  similar  to  those  pro- 
duced by  our  farmers,  we  lose  such  trade.  Thus  in  the 
three  ways  indicated  agricultural  trade  has  been,  and  is, 
sacrificed  to  increase  the  profits  of  manufacture  by  the 
protective  system.  It  would  not  be  strange  if  European 
trade,  driven  off  from  our  shores  bv  excessive  duties, 
had  done  more  to  develop  agriculture  in  South  America, 
Australia  and  other  foreign  lands  than  all  other  influ- 
ences put  together. 

How  an}^  one  can  believe  that  the  heavy  taxation  of 
foreign  imports  will  not  affect  our  export  trade,  the 
larger  portion  of  which  consists  of  agricultural  products, 
is  beyond  comprehension.  Surely,  it  is  impossible  to  be- 
lieve that  a  tax  which  averages  50%  will  not  shut  out 
much  merchandise  from  our  ports  which  would  otherwise 
enter;  and  if  our  tariff  has  such  effect,  how  can  the  retal- 
iatory tariffs  of  other  countries,  aimed  especially,  as  they 
usually  are,  against  our  exports,  imports  in  other  lands, 
fail  to  have  the  same  effect  upon  products  we  would  send 
there?  It  is  unreasonable  to  think  otherwise.  The 
trouble  in  perception  comes  from  the  fact  that  it  is  not 
the  manufacturer's  bull  that  is  goaded.  Were  it  his  bull, 
not  a  moment  would  be  lost.  Action  would  at  once  be 
taken. 

It  remains  to  explain  the  great  expansion  in  agricul- 
tural exportations  in  recent  years.  That  it  is  not  due  to 
high  duties  is  obvious ;  for  if  so,  how  can  it  be  accounted 
for  that  under  practically  the  same  heavy  taxation  of 
importation  there  was  little  if  anv  advance  from  1878- 


Less  Foreign  Demand  for  Products.  45 

1883  to  1892-1897!  It  is  pretty  evident  that  while  Mr. 
StaiiTvoocl  combats  the  idea  that  high  duties  do  not  lessen 
the  exportations  of  agricultural  products,  on  the  other 
hand  he  does  not  believe  that  these  increase  such  export- 
ations :  for  strange  to  say  he  ascribes  the  prosperity  of 
recent  years  chiefly  to  other  causes  than  the  protective 
system.  Listen  to  this:  ''The  political  conditions  under 
which  the  act  of  1897  (Dingley  Act)  was  passed  and  the 
commercial  and  industrial  conditions  that  have  pre- 
vailed during  the  years  it  has  been  in  operation  have  been 
as  favorable  to  its  success  as  those  conditions  which  ap- 
plied to  the  two  preceding  acts  were  unfavorable." 

Again  he  says:  ''MeanwhiJe,  prosperity  had  returned 
to  the  country.  Good  crops,  an  ample  market,  and  high 
prices  rewarded  the  efforts  of  the  farmers,  and  enabled 
them  to  pay  off  a  portion  of  their  indebtedness  which 
they  had  been  tempted  to  wipe  off  with  a  silver  sponge. 
Every  avenue  of  commerce  was  crowded ;  every  industry 
was  full  of  activity;  every  branch  of  trade  felt  the  im- 
pulse of  good  times.  In  1897  the  country  was  ready  for 
a  season  of  great  prosperity.  The  industrial  revolution 
alreadv  mentioned  as  a  check  to  activitv  was  substan 
tially  completed.  The  uncertainty  as  to  the  monetary 
standard  was  dispelled.  In  short,  all  things  were  made 
easy  for  the  success  of  the  tariff.  The  act  of  1897  did  not 
make  prosperity  possible,  nor  did  it  create  prosperity. 
Undoubted Iv  it  added  largelv  to  the  benefits  the  countrv 
would  have  enjoyed  had  the  act  of  1894  been  undisturbed. 
After  all,  it  is  a  truism — a  narrow. margin  separates  suc- 
cess from  failure.  In  a  business  enterprise,  when  once 
the  margin  is  on  the  right  side,  every  addition  is  wholly 
profit.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  Dingley  Act  gave 
an  enormous  increment  to  the  profits  of  American  com- 


46  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

merce  and  labor,  which  would,  in  any  event,  probably 
have  been  satisfactory/' 

It  is  a  wonderful  thing,  perhaps  without  a  precedent, 
that  a  protectionist  should  claim  so  little  as  due  to  the 
system  he  upholds.  But  it  is  evident  that  the  change  of 
conditions  taking  his  own  statements  was  so  great  that 
these  alone  were  amply  sufficient  to  account  for  the 
greater  prosperity  and  the  larger  exportations. 

A  change  to  far  more  favorable  industrial  conditions 
at  home  must  invariably  result,  other  things  being  equal, 
in  a  large  increase  in  foreign  trade,  both  in  importations 
and  exportations.  This  would  account  for  no  inconsider- 
able gain  in  agricultural  exports.  What  had  still  greater 
effect  was  the  larger  crops  of  exportable  products  raised 
in  the  United  States.  Thus,  in  wheat,  the  annual  average 
number  of  bushels  produced  since  1896  was  about  80,000,- 
000  bushels  more  than  the  average  of  that  year  and  the 
three  preceding  years.  The  annual  average  gain  in  corn 
for  the  same  years,  about  426,000,000  bushels ;  of  oats, 
46,000,000  bushels;  of  pounds  of  cotton,  1,247,000,000. 
These  computations  are  in  round  numbers,  but  are  near 
enough  to  convey  a  good  idea  of  the  gain  made  in  produc- 
tion in  recent  years. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  wheat  crop  of  Europe  annually 
averaged  something  like  55,000,000  bushels  less  for  the 
five  years  from  1897  to  1901  than  the  three  preceding 
years,  1894-1896. 

Besides  this,  we  apprehend  that  the  continuous  fall  in 
price  of  these  products  ever  since  war  times,  until  they 
have  reached  a  level  far  below  what  tliev  were  before  the 
war,  has  had  much  to  do  with  the  increase  in  exporta- 
tions ;  for  it  is  a  well-known  fact  that  low  prices  stimulate 
consumption ;  in  other  words,  far  more  persons  can  afford 


Less  Foreign  Demand  for  Products.  47 

to  buy  and  use  an  article  when  it  is  low  in  price.  It  would 
seem  that  this  rule  would  be  particularly  applicable  with 
foreigners,  the  rate  of  whose  wages  is  much  below  our 
own. 

If  to  what  has  gone  before  is  added  the  strong  prob- 
ability that  the  low  jDrices  and  abundance  of  American 
products  to  a  considerable  extent  displaced  in  the  Euro- 
pean markets  the  exports  of  other  nations,  and  very  likely 
even  of  European  farmers,  it  would  seem  that  ample 
explanation  had  been  made  for  the  large  increase  in  our 
agricultural  exports  in  recent  years.  Back  in  1890  Mr. 
McKinlev  said,  when  the  tariff  that  bears  his  name  was 
under  discussion :  ' '  The  depression  of  agriculture  is  not 
confined  to  the  United  States.  The  reports  of  the  Agri- 
cultural Department  indicate  that  this  distress  is  general, 
that  Great  Britain,  France  and  G-ermany  are  suffering 
in  a  greater  degree  than  the  farmer  of  the  United  States." 
This  distress  was  partly  due  to  full  crops  in  Europe,  but 
more,  we  think,  to  the  low  level  of  American  prices,  which 
even  then  were  below  those  of  the  "pauper  labor  of 
Europe."  But  most  of  our  exports  were  at  still  lower 
figures  in  1898-1901. 

This  is  the  way  the  record  stands :  with  low  duties  a 
gain  in  agricultural  exports  of  138%  in  eleven  years; 
this,  too,  when  the  vast  West  had  but  just  begun  to  con- 
tribute to  the  result.  Under  high  duties,  after  retaliatory 
tariffs  got  in  their  destructive  work  the  gain  in  five-year 
periods  from  1878-1882  to  1899-1903,  twenty-two  years, 
twice  the  former  time,  was  38%,  at  the  very  time  when 
the  great  volume  of  western  products  was  rapidly  in- 
creasing, and  the  cost  of  transportation  had  been  greatly 
reduced. 

In  closing,  the  following  table  not  only  indicates  where 


48  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

most  of  our  principal  agricultural  exports  go,  but  also 
how  large  a  portion  of  the  recent  increase  was  taken  by 
the  free  trade  nation.  The  values  given  represent  in 
round  numbers  the  aggregate  of  these  exports :  wheat 
and  wheat  flour;  corn;  beef:  canned,  fresh,  salted, 
pickled ;  pork :  salted,  fresh,  pickled ;  tallow ;  lard ;  bacon, 
and  hams ;  dairy  products ;  cattle,  horses  and  sheep ;  cot- 
ton, and  tobacco. 

Exports  1896  1901  Gain 

United  Kingdom,  $297,100,000  $450,700,000  $153,600,000 

France.  27,000,000      42,800.000       15,800,000 

Germanv,  62.600.000     124.400.000       61,800,000 

All  Europe,  451.100,000     734,400,000     283.300,000 

All  nations,  505,700.000     807.400.000     301,700,000 

All  nations  minus  Europe,  54,500,000       73,000,000       18,500.000 

Taking  out  cotton  and  tobacco,  the  export  record  of 
above  products  stands  thus : 

1896  1901  Gain  or  Loss. 

United  Kingdom,  $195,800,000  $294,800,000     +99,000,000 

France,  4.900,000  4,800,000         —100,000 

Germanv.  16.800,000  44,400.000     +27,600,000 

All  Europe,  244,800,000  407,100,000  +162,300,000 

All  nations,  291,200,000  466,300,000  +175,100,000 
All  nations  minus 

Europe,  46,300,000  59,100,000         12,800,000 

It  is  seen  that  of  these  products,  including  cotton  and 
tobacco,  the  little  free  trade  nation  takes  much  more  than 
half  of  all  that  we  export;  in  other  words,  more  than  all 
the  rest  of  the  big  world.  What  a  demand  there  would  be 
for  our  farmers'  products  if  all  the  world  were  open  like 
the  United  Kingdom  to  our  trade !  That  the  world  is  not 
so  open  is  due  more  to  our  high  protective  system  than  to 
anv  other  cause. 


Less  Foreign  Demand  Intensifies  Home  Competition,        49 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Less.  Fokeign  Demand  Intensifies  Home  Competition 

AND  Lowers  Price. 

With  low  duties  the  gain  in  value  in  exportations  of 
agricultural  products  was  rapid  and  continuous;  under 
high  duties  the  movement  was  fitful — now  a  loss,  then  a 
gain,  on  the  whole  for  twenty-two  years  nearly  at  a  stand- 
still. The  stagnation  in  the  latter  case  was  more  sur- 
prising bcause  conditions  in  regard  to  production  and 
transportation  were  in  the  highest  degree  favorable  for 
a  brilliant  record  in  the  export  trade.  The  one  hindrance 
to  such  success,  the  all-pervading  influence  of  which  was 
felt  at  every  seaport  in  the  United  States,  was  the  high 
protective  system,  which  lay  like  a  rock  in  the  way  of  all 
our  commerce.  Such  were  the  facts  established  in  the 
preceding  chapter.  We  are  now  to  consider  the  effect 
upon  agriculture  of  a  greatly  restricted  market. 

In  the  industrial  world  it  is  recognized  that  the  wider, 
the  larger  the  market  for  a  product,  other  things  being 
equal,  the  higher  will  be  the  price.  To  limit  the  market 
produces  the  same  effect  as  to  increase  the  supply;  and 
where  supply  is  increased,  demand  remaining  the  same,  a 
lower  price  results.  Here  we  have  the  position  of  the 
American  farmer  whose  market  abroad  is  restricted  by 
our  high  duties.  To  a  great  extent,  products  that  under 
free  conditions  would  have  gone  abroad,  have  remained 
here,  intensifying  competition,  and  causing  price  to  fall 
to  a  low  level. 

The  opposite  of  what  has  been  said  concerning  the 

4 


50  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

effect  of  an  increase  in  supply  is  true,  which  is :  decreas- 
ing the  supply,  demand  remaining  the  same,  increases 
the  price.  So  essential  is  it  considered  by  great  manu- 
facturing corporations  to  get  rid  of  a  superfluity  in  order 
to  sustain  their  bloated  prices  here,  that  it  is  said  that 
their  surplus  products  are  disposed  of  in  England  regard- 
less of  cost.  We  present  views  of  prominent  friends  of 
these  corporations.  Here  is  what  Mr.  John  P.  Young, 
who  has  long  been  managing  editor  of  the  San  Francisco 
Chronicle,  a  staunch  protectionist,  has  to  say  as  regards 
the  effect  of  dumping  a  surplus  on  Great  Britain.  The 
trouble  with  industry  there  is  "chiefly  because  the  for- 
eigners  who  export  to  G-reat  Britain  are  resorting  to 
methods  which  permit  them  to  maintain  prices  at  home 
by  dumping  their  surplus  on  the  one  country  which  still 
consents  to  be  made  the  victim  of  the  practice."  ''It  is 
the  common  custom  to  dispose  of  surplus  stocks  without 
reference  to  the  cost  of  production.  In  the  United  States 
this  was  done  for  many  years  in  a  bungling  fashion ;  but 
a  leaf  was  taken  out  of  British  experience,  and  American 
manufacturers  now  seek  to  market  their  surpluses  with- 
out breaking  home  prices.  They  learned  the  hitter  lessoyi 
that  the  surplus  ichen  dumped  on  the  domestic  (home) 
market  fixed  the  price  ivithout  reference  to  the  cost  of  the 
product/'  Again  Mr.  Young:  "The  idea  is  now  gener- 
ally entertained  by  workingmen  in  the  United  States,  and 
it  is  shared  by  those  of  Germany,  that  excessive  compe- 
tition in  the  home  market  is  destructive  to  home  in- 
dustry/' 

Our  politicians  are  most  profoundly  impressed  with 
the  importance  of  getting  rid  of  surpluses  away  from 
home.  For  our  manufacturers  they  seem  to  regard  it  as 
a  matter  of  life  and  death.     Why  should  not  the  same 


Less  Foreign  Demand  Intensifies  Home  Competition,        51 

principle  apply  to  agricultural  products!  Senator  Bev- 
eridge,  at  Cincinnati,  in  October,  1902,  is  reported  to 
have  said:  ''And  so  you  see  that  the  little  puff  of  agita- 
tion for  unconditional  tariff  reduction  is  born  of  unrea- 
son and  nurtured  by  a  thoughtless  disregard  of  the  sale 
of  our  surplus  upon  ivhicli  our  whole  prosperity  de- 
pends.'' 

Here  we  have  an  expression  from  Senator  Hoar  of 
Massachusetts,  taken  from  the  Boston  Journal:  "We 
are  sending  our  products  abroad.  We  expect  to  send  our 
products  abroad  in  larger  degree.  A  prosperous  manu- 
facturing country  that  sends  its  products  abroad  ivill 
alivays,  if  it  is  to  remain  prosperous,  get  higher  prices 
for  its  product  at  home  than  it  does  abroad.  In  other 
words,  it  dumps  its  surplus  in  foreign  markets.  Lord 
Brougham  stated  that  very  powerfully  more  than  fifty 
years  ago.  He  declared  in  his  speech  that  the  English 
manufacturers  held  their  foreign  markets  by  their  power 
of  breaking  down  foreign  competition  by  underselling 
them  with  their  own  surplus,  which  they  could  not  sell 
at  home."' 

The  effect  of  disposing  of  a  surplus  in  the  home  mar- 
ket is  indicated  in  these  words  of  D.  A.  Wells:  "If  pro- 
duction exceeds,  by  even  a  very  small  percentage,  what 
is  required  to  meet  every  current  demand  for  con- 
sumption, the  price  which  the  surplus  will  command  in 
the  open  market  will  govern  and  control  the  price  of  the 
whole ;  and  if  it  cannot  be  sold  at  all,  or  with  difficulty,  an 
intense  competition  on  the  part  of  the  owners  of  accumu- 
lated stocks  to  sell  will  be  engendered,  with  a  great  reduc- 
tion or  annihilation  of  all  profit."^ 

The  agricultural  situation  after  1880,  the  time  already 


1  <( 


Recent  Economic  Changes,"  page  78. 


52  The  Tariff  arid  the  Farmer. 

noted  when  the  effect  of  retaliatory  tariffs  began  to  be 
felt,  very  closely  resembles  this  description  of  Mr.  Wells. 
In  his  book,  ''Eecent  Economic  Changes,"  in  a  note,  are 
given  some  extracts  from  the  ''Eeport  of  the  Chamber  of 
Commerce  of  Cincinnati"  of  Ohio,  the  year  ending  Aug. 
31,  1886.  We  quote:  "There  is  one  condition  revealed 
by  the  statistics  of  1885-86  that  is  very  noticeable,  which 
is  that  prices  in  general  touched  the  lowest  point  in  a 
quarter  of  a  century.  There  were  those  who  supposed 
that  the  shrinking  processes  had  been  arrested  in  the  pre- 
ceding year,  and  yet  the  figures  for  1885-86,  in  nearly  all 
departments  of  business,  show  lower  prices  than  the  pre- 
vious year.  In  presence  of  the  low  prices  of  1884-85  it 
seems  almost  incredible  that  so  much  of  market  value 
could  be  wrung  from  them  as  has  been  during  the  past 
year."^  Again  from  the  same  report:  "It  may  be  inter- 
esting to  take  a  glance  at  the  tremendous  reduction  which 
has  taken  place  in  the  past  five  years,  which,  in  articles 
that  enter  into  the  every-day  wants  of  man,  in  not  a  few 
instances  has  been  equal  to  almost  one-half  their  value  in 
1881-82.  The  gravitation  to  a  lower  plane  of  value  has 
been  so  steady  as  to  prevent  a  full  appreciation  of  the 
enormous  shrinkage  to  which  commodities  have  been  sub- 
jected. Thus,  in  mess-pork  the  depreciation  in  the  gen- 
eral average  price  since  1881-82  has  been  48.57c ;  in  prime 
steam  lard,  46;  hams,  24.4;  shelled  corn,  43;  aats  (which 
in  Europe  have  shown  no  tendency  in  recent  years  to  fall 
in  iDrice),  39.4;  rye,  32.6;  bran,  33.8;  extra  butter,  46.9; 
tallow,  41.4;  flour,  34.3;  linseed  oil,  30;  salt,  18.6;  cheese, 
17.1;  fair  to  medium  cattle,  18.3;  middling  cotton,  21.7; 
Louisiana  rice,  28.9;  barley,  18.6;  and  wool,  15%."^ 

'  "Recent  Economic  Changes,"  201. 
'  "Recent  Economic  Changes,"  202. 


Less  Foreign  Demand  Intensifies  Home  Competition.        53 

"  The  report  for  the  year  ending  August,  1887,  thus 
states  the  further  experience  of  the  Cincinnati  market: 
'Low  as  were  the  prices  of  breadstuff s  in  the  previous 
year,  they  touched  in  the  past  year  (1887)  still  lower 
points.  The  same  is  true  of  cattle,  sheep,  molasses, 
sugar,  rice,  syrups,  salt,  and,  during  most  of  the  year, 

potatoes.'  "  ' 

Confirmatory  evidence  of  the  above  is  furnished  in  the 
seventh  biennial  report  of  the  Wisconsin  Commissioner 
of  Labor  Bureau,  according  to  "Farm  and  Fireside" 
journal.  ''The  depression  has  been  severe  since  1884. 
About  this  time  a  rapid  fall  set  in,  which  continued  until 
temporarily  checked  by  the  short  crops  of  this  country  in 
1890,  and  in  Europe  in  1891  and  1892."  .  The  Commis- 
sioner attributes  the  cause  of  agricultural  depression  ''to 
the  fact  that  our  power  of  production  increases  at  a  much 
greater  ratio  than  the  consuming  power,  resulting  in 
what  may  be  called  over-production. ' ' 

Exactly,  "over-production,"  produced  in  part  at  least 
by  the  partial  closing  of  the  foreign  door !  Just  as  west- 
ern production  began  to  move  eastward  in  great  volume 
the  rates  of  protective  duties  were  doubled.  Largely  pre- 
vented from  passing  off  over  the  sea,  these  western  prod- 
ucts filled  full  our  eastern  markets,  driving  our  farmers 
here  into  other  lines  of  farming.  Year  after  year  the 
competition  grew  more  intense  all  over  the  nation  as 
western  and  southern  farmers  multiplied  and  broadened 
out  into  new  branches  of  agriculture.  Year  after  year 
the  production  of  fatted  animals,  of  hay,  of  grains,  of 
butter,  of  many  vegetables,  of  small  fruits  and  orchard 
products  rapidly  increased  till  the  eastern  farmer  had  no 
chance  save  in  a  few  products  such  as  milk,  a  few  vege- 

*  "Recent  Economic  Changes,"  202. 


54  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

tables  and  small  fruits;  everytliing  that  could  be  trans- 
ported long  distances  was  out  of  the  question  for  him. 
Pent  in  these  narrow  limits,  the  competition  of  eastern 
farmers  among  themselves  became  so  great  that  even  in 
the  few  lines  left  them  there  was  little  or  no  profit  for 
the  average  farmer.  For  many  years  these,  by  careful 
economv,  have  little  more  than  obtained  a  livelihood. 

This  short  explanation  makes  clear  how  our  pernicious 
foreign  policy  has  involved  all  the  agricultural  class,  not 
simply  the  producers  of  exportable  products. 

As  the  proof  already  offered  may  be  deemed  insuffi- 
cient to  establish  the  fact  of  a  great  fall  in  the  price  of 
agricultural  products  after  1880,  we  proceed  to  examine 
official  figures  and  statements.  The  following  table  was 
prepared  from  figures  obtained  from  Statistical  Abstracts 
of  the  United  States  :  , 

Average  Annual  Export  Prices  per  Decade,  with  Per 

Cent,  of  Gain  or  Loss,  of  Corn  ;  Wheat  ;  Cotton  ; 

Bacon  and  Hams  ;  Pork,  Salted  or  Pickled  ; 

Beef,  Salted  or  Pickled;  and  Butter. 


Corn, 

AVheat, 

Cotton, 

Bacon  and 

Pork, 

Beef, 

Butter, 

bushel 

bushel 

pound 

Hams,  lb. 

pound 

pound 

pound 

1840-50  $.593  $1.05 

7.91  c, 

record  begi 

ns  in  1855. 

per  cent.       15 

21 

half  a 

decade. 

1850-60     .685 

1.268 

10.58 

9.54  c. 

8.64  c. 

.  7.96  c. 

18.12 c 

percent.       35 

9 

31 

27 

20 

38 

1860-70     .924 

1.389 

37.97 

12.54 

10.94 

9.58 

25.02 

per  cent.  — 26 

—8 

—17 

18 

19 

13 

1870-80     .686 

1.276 

15.17 

10.4 

8.95 

7.78 

21.77 

percent.  — 18 

—21 

15 

16 

—13 

19 

1880-90       .56 

1.011 

10.53 

8.8 

7.51 

6.76 

17.60 

percent.  — 20 

21 

— 7 

—16 

—18 

—10 

1890-1900  .45 

.797 

7.77 

8.19 

6.28 

o.ol 

15.87 

Less  Foreign  Demand  Intensifies  Home  Competition.        55 

Percentage  of  Fall  in  Price  from  Decade    1870-80    to 
1890-1900  OF  Above;  Twenty  Years. 

Corn      AVheat    Cotton        Bacon         Pork  Beef        Butter 

percent.   .34         .37        41  21  30  29  26 

Here  it  is  seen  that  tlie  record  of  corn  is  quite  similar 
to  that  of  the  rest.  The  prices  of  all  rise  and  fall  in  uni- 
son, and  the  percentages  of  rise  and  fall  often  show  a 
remarkable  coincidence.  It  is  seen  there  was  a  large 
gain  in  the  price  of  both  corn  and  wheat  in  the  decade 
1850-60,  under  low  duties,  over  the  preceding  decade. 
The  war  period  sent  the  values  of  all  way  up. 

It  is  further  seen  that  prices  in  1870-80  were  almost 
precisely  at  the  same  level  as  those  of  1850-60,  with  the 
exception  of  cotton  and  butter.  But  the  prices  did  not 
stop  where  they  were  before  the  war;  under  the  highest 
duties  ever  known  in  the  United  States  they  plunged  down 
to  a  depth  about  30%  lower,  as  is  shown  at  the  foot  of  the 
table. 

These  prices  most  remarkably  sustain  the  view  pre- 
sented in  chapters  VIII,  IX  and  X  of  the  agricul- 
tural situation  during  the  last  fifty  years.  A  prosperous 
condition  is  indicated  from  1850-60,  and  almost  a  strug- 
gle for  existence  during  the  last  twenty  of  those  years. 
For  the  last  few  years  it  is  probable  that  conditions  have 
somewhat  improved  for  the  farmers  of  the  West  and 
South,  owing  to  favorable  seasons  and  a  large  foreign 
demand  for  agricultural  products ;  but  where  is  there  evi- 
dence of  better  davs  for  the  Eastern  farmer! 

But  it  will  be  claimed  that  the  price  of  manufactured 
goods  has  fallen  more  than  those  of  agriculture,  and  this 
may  be  true.  But  this  admission  does  not  injure  our  posi- 
tion nor  help  that  of 'our  opponents.  Why  has  there  been 


56  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

in  the  last  fifty  to  sixty  years  a  large  fall  in  the  price  of 
manufactured  goods?  Because  of  great  improvement  in 
methods  and  in  the  machinery  of  production.  These 
same  agents  have  been  at  work  in  the  agricultural  field, 
but  no  such  degree  of  success  has  followed  here.  Listen 
to  Mr.-  North,  one  of  the  chiefs  in  the  preparation  of  the 
census  report  of  1900.  In  the  American  Monthly  Eeview 
of  Eeviews  of  September,  1902,  he  says :  ' '  The  increased 
horse-power  employed  in  manufacturing  is,  on  the  whole, 
the  most  striking  fact  brought  out  by  the  census.  The 
total  horse-power  so  employed  was  reported  in  1890  as 
5,954,655;  in  1900  as  11,300^081,  an  increase  of  89.8%  in 
ten  years.  It  is  commonly  calculated  that  one  horse- 
power is  equivalent  to  the  labor  of  ten  men,  a  very  low 
average,  since  it  makes  no  allowance  for  the  fact  that  the 
engine  never  tires  and  never  varies.  It  means  that  the 
horse-power  employed  in  our  manufactures  in  1900  was 
equal  in  its  producing  ca]3acity  to  the  labor  of  113,000,000 
able-bodied  men  working  everv  dav  in  the  vear.  How 
insignificant  in  contrast  appears  the  contribution  to  in- 
dustrial wealth  of  the  5,316,892  men,  women  and  children, 
the  actual  average  number  of  persons  employed  in  the 
census  year  to  direct  and  supplement  this  tremendous 
power. ' '  Again  ' '  to  the  much  more  general  use  of  power- 
driven  machinery  in  this  country  may  safely  be  attrib- 
uted the  remarkable  advance  of  the  United  States  to  the 
first  rank  among  the  manufacturing  nations."  Again, 
^'the  apparent  value  of  products  per  wage-earner  has 
increased  from  $1065  in  1850  to  $2148  in  1900."  Mr.  Car- 
roll D.  Wright  says :  "  It  is  impossible  to  arrive  at  an 
accurate  statement  as  to  the  number  of  persons  it  would 
require  under  the  old  system  to  jDroduce  the  goods  made 
by  the  present  industrial  system  with  the  aid  of  inven- 


Less  Foreign  Demand  Intensifies  Home  Competition.        57 

tion  and  power  machinery.  Looking  at  this  question 
without  any  desire  to  be  mathematically  accurate,  it  is 
fair  to  say,  perhaps,  that  it  would  require  from  fifty  to 
one  hundred  million  persons  in  this  country,  working 
under  the  old  system,  to  jDroduce  the  goods  made  and  do 
the  work  performed  by  the  workers  of  to-day  with  the  aid 
of  machinery."^ 

In  efficiency  of  production,  where  there  has  been  an 
advance  in  manufacture  of  from  three  to  six  fold,  it  is 
doubtful  if  the  power  of  agriculture  is  50%  greater.  That 
is,  in  the  former,  two  men  will  now  do  what  fifty  years 
ago  would,  on  the  average,  have  required  from  six  to 
twelve  men;  but  in  agriculture  two  men  now  will  hardly 
make  good  what  three  performed  then.  In  the  harvest- 
ing of  wheat,  barley,  oats,  in  the  hay  field,  and  in  the  turn- 
ing of  milk  into  butter,  there  has  been  a  large  increase  of 
efficiency.  These  are  representatives  of  a  few  products 
where  very  much  more  is  now  accomplished  with  fewer 
men.  But  it  takes  just  as  long  now  to  milk  cows  and  per- 
form most  of  the  chores  of  a  dairv  farm.  The  writer  is 
not  aware  that  there  has  been  much  abridgment  of  labor 
in  the  growing  of  the  corn  crop  (certainly  not  in  the  east- 
ern states) ;  or  in  the  production  of  most  vegetables,  or 
of  orchard  fruits ;  or  of  beef,  pork,  poultry ;  or  of  eggs ; 
or,  for  the  last  fifty  years,  of  cotton.  If  the  writer  is  not 
mistaken,  it  takes  just  as  long  as  ever  to  raise  live  stock, 
horses,  cattle,  sheep,  hogs  and  fowls.  In  short,  if  the 
entire  circle  of  agriculture  is  included,  the  scientific 
advancement  and  the  aid  of  machinery  will  be  found  far 
less  than  is  popularly  supposed.  Marked  success  in  a 
few  lines  and  small  gains  in  many  others  have  been  mag- 
nified as  to  the  grand  result.     Let  those  who  feel  like  dis- 


1  '< 


Industrial  Revolution  of  the  United  States,"  p.  334. 


58  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

puting  the  position  explain  why,  with  nearly  four  times 
the  farms  of  fifty  years  ago  (indicating  an  equal  increase 
in  number  of  farmers),  the  value  of  agricultural  products, 
according  to  Mr.  Xorth,  in  the  same  article  above  referred 
to,  has  been  increased  less  than  two-fold.  By  the  same 
census  authority  a  four  and  a  half  fold  increase  of  wage- 
earners  in  the  same  time  in  manufacture  produced  about 
a  twelve-fold  greater  value.  There  has  been  a  large 
artificial  advance  in  the  price  of  manufactured  goods,  but 
not  to  such  an  extent  as  this.  If  there  has  been  such  a 
great  general  increase  in  efficiency  of  labor  on  the  farms 
as  agricultural  writers  and  as  state  boards  of  agricul- 
ture would  have  us  believe,  let  them  solve  the  riddle  why 
the  total  value  of  such  products  is  now  so  small.  To  help 
them  we  throw  in  two  more  items.  The  number  of 
acres  of  land  per  farm  in  1850  was  202.6 ;  in  1900,  146.2. 
The  other  item  is,  in  1900  the  total  value  of  all  farm 
property  was  five-fold  greater  than  in  1850.  Xow  why, 
with  nearly  four  times  the  number  of  persons  engaged, 
and  five  times  the  value  of  capital  invested,  was  the  value 
of  products  less  than  two-fold  what  it  was  in  the  former 
time  //  there  has  been  a  great  increase  in  efflcienci/ 
throughout  the  industry? 

If  in  one  industry,  because  of  improved  methods  and 
the  greater  use  of  machinery,  one  man  can  turn  out  a 
13roduct  several  times  greater  than  formerly,  while  in 
another  industrial  conditions  are  such  that  science  has 
made  far  less  progress,  it  certainly  would  be  unreason- 
able to  expect  that  as  the  prices  of  the  first  fall,  those  of 
the  other  should  fall  in  equal  measure. 

In  closing  the  chapter  careful  consideration  is  called 
to  the  significance  of  large  agricultural  exports  at  a  time 
when  ''articles  manufactured,  ready  for  consumption," 


Less  Foreign  Demand  Intensifies  Home  Competition.        59 

when  imported,  are  subject  to  an  average  duty  of  50%. 
If  this  export  trade  were  of  small  dimensions,  or  if  the 
products  were  those  of  a  small  section  of  the  country,  the 
aspect  would  be  different.  But  its  large  volume  for  sev- 
eral successive  years  of  products  similar  to  those  pro- 
duced by  perhaps  half  of  all  engaged  in  agriculture, 
under  conditions  that  would  seemingly  i^revent  all 
exchange,  gives  this  movement  a  most  peculiar  signifi- 
cance. 

We  call  attention  to  the  magnitude  of  this  trade.  The 
census  of  1900  gives  the  total  value  of  agricultural  prod- 
ucts of  the  United  States  for  the  preceding  year,  1899, 
as  $4,717,069,973.  This  includes  all  that  is  con- 
sumed of  such  products  on  the  farms.  The  agricultural 
community  comprises  from  35  to  40%  of  the  total  popu- 
lation. Of  live  stock  there  are :  neat  cattle,  52,000,000 ; 
horses  and  mules,  20,000,000 ;  sheep  and  swine,  over  100,- 
000,000 ;  and  the  number  of  the  feathered  tribes  probably 
several  billions.  To  feed  this  vast  multitude  of  men  and 
animals  would,  we  think,  provide  a  market  for  one  half 
the  value  of  the  total  production ;  or,  setting  it  very  low, 
would  take  $1,700,000,000. 

The  annual  average  value  of  agricultural  exports  for 
the  last  few  years  has  been  over  $850,000,000.  A  con- 
siderable portion  of  this  value,  however,  represents  rail- 
road carriage  and  other  costs  of  shipment  to  seaport. 
The  farm  value  would  doubtless  be  much  less  than  $800,- 
000,000.  Perhaps  more  than  one-fourth  of  the  total  value 
not  consumed  on  the  farms  has  for  a  few  vears  been  sent 
abroad. 

The  large  proportions  of  this  trade  and  its  persistence 
for  a  term  of  years  are  conclusive  evidence  that  it  is  not 
a  surplus  dumped  in  foreign  lands  and  sold  regardless  of 


60  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

cost  like  the  products  of  over-loaded  trusts.  Our  agri- 
cultural exports  are  the  products  of  millions  of  farmers 
scattered  over  a  wide  territory  of  many  states.  From  the 
same  territory  comes  the  supply  of  similar  products  that 
are  sent  to  the  Eastern  States.  The  farmer  receives  the 
same  price  per  bushel  or  pound  for  that  exported  as  for 
that  consumed  at  home;  so  that  the  price  of  our  agricul- 
tural products,  whether  sold  at  home  or  abroad,  is  on  a, 
level  with  that  obtained  by  the  farmers  of  Europe. 

That  this  level  is  far  below  that  of  manufactured  goods 
in  the  United  States  is  evident,  otherwise  there  would  be 
no  occasion  for  a  50%  duty  on  such  manufactured  prod- 
ucts when  imported.  The  farmer,  then,  is  selling  at  one 
level  and  is  forced  by  the  tariff  to  buy  his  supplies  at  a 
far  higher  level.  How  much  higher  the  level  is  is  here 
indicated.  In  a  note,  found  in  the  United  States  Census 
Eeport  of  1900,  a  prominent  English  statistician,  Mr. 
Mulhall  is  quoted  as  affirming :  ' '  The  value  of  American 
manufacturers  is  artificially  raised  by  protective  duties 
fully  33%  over  the  real  value."  The  effect  upon  the 
farmer  is  exactly  the  same  as  if  he  received  pay  for  his 
products  in  a  depreciated  currency  and  had  to  pay  for  his 
purchases  with  gold  at  a  high  premium.  The  champion 
of  this  system  is  the  same  ^'  Grand  Old  Party"  that  prides 
itself  on  its  maintenance  of  the  gold  standard.  So  long 
as  its  pets  receive  the  benefit,  it  cares  little  if  the  farmer 
is  paid  in  depreciated  trade  checks. 


Cost  of  Fanners^  Supplies  Increased.  61 


CHAPTER  V. 

CONFISCATIOX    EaTES    OF    DuTIES    GrREATLY    IlTCREASE    THE 

Cost  of  Farmers^  Supplies. 

No  term  of  weaker  meaning  than  confiscation  is  ade- 
quate to  apply  to  rates  of  duties  that  have  been  imposed 
for  many  years  on  imports  of  manufactured  goods.  In 
recent  vears  the  ''ad  valorem  rate  on  dutiable  articles 
manufactured  ready  for  consumption"  has  annually  aver- 
aged about  50%.  In  1903,  the  most  recent  record  of 
United  States  foreign  trade  that  is  at  hand,  the  rate  of 
duty  on  cotton  manufactures  averaged  53% ;  on  leather 
and  manufactures  of,  35%.  Of  the  manufactures  of 
leather,  gloves  formed  the  greater  part  of  value,  and 
these  averaged  duties  of  53%.  The  imports  of  iron  and 
steel  averaged  duties  of  32.15%.  The  rate  here  falls  to 
a  low  figure,  because  raw  material  to  a  large  amount  is 
included,  or  manufactures  not  much  advanced.  Iron  and 
steel  manufactures,  ready  for  consumption,  of  skilled 
workmanship  did  not  enter  the  country  to  much  extent. 
They  were  excluded  by  duties  of  this  size:  "machinery, 
not  elsewhere  specified,"  45%;  ''total  fire-arms,"  about 
the  same ;  ' '  total  cutlery, ' '  64%  ;  ' '  total  wire :  round  iron 
or  steel,"  41%. 

Earthenware  averaged  59%  duty. 

The  average  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty  paid  by  manu- 
factures of  woolen  was  91%;  that  is,  before  the  im- 
ported goods  could  be  put  on  the  Auierican  market,  a 
sum  nearly  equal  to  the  cost  of  their  manufacture  must 


62  The  Tariff  and  the  Fanner. 

be  paid  Uncle  Sam.  Dress  goods,  women's  and  chil- 
dren's, imported  to  tlie  value  of  $7,384,463.72,  paid  duties 
of  $7,634,757.65,  or  over  103%. 

Now,  considering  these  duties  in  the  light  of  a  tax — 
one  of  the  ways  of  obtaining  revenue  for  the  support  of 
the  United  States  government — how  do  the  charges  com- 
pare with  common  rates  of  taxation?  In  the  State  of 
Massachusetts,  where  tax  on  property  for  state,  county 
and  town  or  city  purposes  is  but  $8  or  $10  a  thousand, 
the  rate  is  thought  to  be  quite  low,  but  when  this  rate 
rises  to  $20  a  thousand — 2% — it  is  regarded  as  oppres- 
sively high.  The  tax  payers  strongly  object  to  such  an 
exorbitant  tax.  And  well  thev  mav  when  the  usual  rate 
of  interest  is  but  5%  or  less,  for  nearly  half  the  income 
is  taken  by  the  tax  collector.  Is  it  strange  that  the  peo- 
ple murmur  when  so  large  a  part  of  their  living  is  swept 
away  ]  What,  then,  shall  be  said  of  revenue  taxes  aver- 
aging 50 7t  of  value! 

Again,  in  home  competition,  other  things  being  equal, 
a  manufacturer  who  is  at  a  disadvantage  of  10%  would  be 
regarded  as  fearfully  handicapped,  and,  unless  profits  in 
that  line  were  large,  a  few  years  would  bring  bankruptcy 
or  retirement.  What,  then,  must  be  the  effect  on  foreign 
competition  subject  to  a  disadvantage  of  507c  on  the  aver- 
age, with  many  exceptional  cases  where  rates  of  duties 
rose  from  80  to  100%?  The  effect  has  been  that  while 
there  has  been  an  increase  in  value  of  manufactured 
products  in  the  United  States  of  200%  in  the  thirty  years, 
1870-1900,  the  increase  in  imports  of  "articles  man- 
ufactured ready  for  consumption"  from  period  1870-74 
to  period  1900-04  has  been  only  11% — an  annual  average 
gain  that  is  ahnost  imperceptible.  The  trade  in  finished 
products  has  been  well-nigh  strangled  by  the  strong  hand 


Cost  of  Farmers^  Supplies  Increased.  63 

of  group  monopoly  exerted  through  the  national  govern- 
ment. President  Dolan  of  the  Manufacturers'  National 
Association  knew  well  what  he  was  talking  about  when  he 
said  (chapter  VI)  that  over  "the  home  market,  the  great- 
est of  all  markets,  our  control  is  absolute." 

Organized  manufacture  is  in  complete  possession  of 
the  field.  Her  forces  command  the  door  through  which 
competition  could  come  from  abroad — her  industrial 
groups  are  in  league  to  prevent  the  effect  of  mutual  com- 
petition at  home. 

When  a  comparatively  few  men  in  each  industrial 
group  can  fix  the  price  of  their  products,  and  when,  inside 
of  a  wide  range,  no  matter  how  exorbitant,  the  ]3eople 
must  pay  or  go  without,  no  one  with  knowledge  of  human 
nature  would  expect  that  reasonable  prices  , would  be 
charged.  The  case  will  be  exceptional  when  price  is  de- 
termined solely  by  the  sellers,  where  this  is  not  expanded 
as  far  as  thought  policy  to  go.  The  Standard  Oil  Com- 
pany illustrates  human  greed  when  given  a  free  hand. 
Bearing  what  would  seem  to  be  an  intolerable  burden  as 
the  possessors  of  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars,  the  crav- 
ing for  more  and  more  is  still  so  strong  that,  according 
to  the  newspapers,  the  price  of  oil  is  held  so  high  as  to 
return  annual  dividends  of  40%  or  more.  One  might 
as  well  try  to  fill  a  bottomless  pit  as  to  attempt  to  satisfy 
human  greed  for  gold. 

There  is  no  other  great  class  or  occupation  situated  as 
the  farmer  is  in  regard  to  the  protective  system.  The 
people  engaged  in  trade,  transportation,  domestic  service, 
and  persons  in  the  professions  for  the  most  part  dwell  in 
the  business  centres  alongside  of  those  engaged  in  manu- 
facture. When  incomes,  salaries,  wages,  go  up  in  the 
latter    employment,    the    higher    remuneration    is    soon 


64  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

reflected  in  the  near-by  occupations.  A  richer  prospect 
attracts  mankind  as  irresistibly  as  flies  are  drawn  by 
molasses.  If  few  of  those  in  other  lines  do  not  them- 
selves change  to  the  more  profitable,  many  of  their  chil- 
dren not  held  by  the  ties  that  bind  the  fathers  will  seek 
the  richer  reward.  In  one  way  or  another,  where  men 
are  in  intimate  contact,  profits  and  wages  in  the  various 
occupations,  other  things  being  equal,  will  tend  to  a  com- 
mon level.  This  is  not  denying  that  superior  ability,  a 
larger  purse,  or  powerful  advantage  of  any  kind  may 
leave  those  of  average  ability  or  circumstance  far  behind. 
Nor  do  we  deny  that  for  some  cause,  hard  to  understand 
sometimes,  there  is  a  great  diversity  in  the  value  of  re- 
ward received  for  labor.  Still  the  above  proposition  is 
true  as  a  general  rule;  and  being  true,  the  exchange  of 
service  between  those  of  the  various  occupations  are 
nearly  if  not  quite  on  equal  terms.  Here  the  rates  of 
profit  and  wages  are  based  on  those  received  in  manufac- 
ture, which  in  turn  are  based  on  cost.  For  this  reason 
the  higher  cost  of  living  caused  by  the  protective  system 
does  not  have  the  injurious  effect  as  upon  those  engaged 
in  agriculture.  In  the  former  case  increased  cost  is  bal- 
anced by  larger  profits  and  wages.  This  is  not  true  with 
the  farmer  whose  products  sell  according  to  degree  of 
competition.  Here,  no  matter  how  high  cost  of  living 
may  rise,  if  degree  of  competition  remains  the  same, 
there  is  nothing  to  increase  his  profits  and  equalize  the 
situation.  Much  to  the  same  effect  is  this  sentence  of  the 
Worthy  Master  of  the  National  Grange  in  his  address  at 
the  annual  meeting  of  the  organization  in  1907:  ^'What- 
ever injustice  may  be  occasioned  by  the  existence  of  com- 
binations of  capital  constituting  trusts  which  are  able  to 
control  the  output  and  ^^  the  price  of  their  products, 


Cost  of  Farmers^  Supplies  Increased.  65 

falls   heaviest  upon  the   farmer,   for  his  is,   and  must 
remain,  a  competitive  industry." 

The  Farmer  a  Large  Purchaser  of  Manufactured 

Products. 

The  agricultural  masses  comprise  from  35  to  40%  of 
the  total  population.  Manufactured  goods  to  an  immense 
value  are  purchased  by  them.  No  other  class  requires 
so  great  a  variety  of  such  products.  The  home  of  the 
well-to-do  mechanic  is  filled  by  a  large  variety  of  such 
articles.  In  the  pantry  will  be  found  boxes  and  dishes  of 
wood,  tin,  glass  and  iron;  quite  a  collection  of  crockery- 
ware;  knives,  forks,  spoons;  various  spices  and  canned 
goods.  In  the  kitchen,  sitting-room  and  parlor  there  are 
chairs,  tables,  stoves,  lounges,  a  refrigerator,  looking- 
glasses,  pictures,  curtains,  a  musical  instrument,  book- 
cases more  or  less  filled  with  books.  In  the  chambers  are 
bed-steads  with  their  mattresses,  blankets,  sheets, 
springs ;  bureaus ;  toilet  sets ;  besides  more  chairs,  look- 
ing-glasses and  curtains.  In  the  closets  hang  the  many 
articles  that  make  up  the  wearing  apparel  of  husband, 
wife  and  children  that  are  not  folded  away  in  the  bureau 
drawers.  Even  the  up-to-date  workman  in  this  land  of 
advanced  civilization  gives  employment  to  a  multitude 
of  manufacturing  trades  besides  those  of  the  carpenters, 
masons,  lathers  and  painters,  etc.,  who  build  and  prepare 
his  house. 

In  addition  to  all  this  the  fore-handed  farmer  provides 
shelter  for  his  hay  and  live  stock;  sheds,  hen-houses, 
barns;  buys  harnesses,  wagons,  carriages,  sleighs;  very 
many  small  tools  for  general  repairs  and  for  cultivating 
the  soil;  other  expensive  farm  machinery  such  as  plows, 
harrows,  cultivators,  horse-rakes,  mowing  and  reaping 


66  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

machines,  manure-spreaders,  liay-cutters,  and  winnowing 
machines.  Multiply  what  the  average  farmer  yearly  buys 
of  manufactured  products  in  building  a  home,  supporting 
his  familv  and  carrying  on  his  industry  by  the  number  of 
farmers  in  the  United  States  (from  fiye  to  six  million) 
and  the  total  sum,  we  believe,  would  be  between  one  and 
two  billions  of  dollars. 

AVe  are  often  reminded  of  the  great  gain  that  accrues 
to  the  farmer  from  the  manufacturing  industry,  but 
rarely  is  acknowledgment  made  of  the  boundless  indebt- 
edness of  the  manufacturing  class  to  the  farming  com- 
munity. The  farming  class  provides  three  essentials, 
without  either  one  of  which  manufacture  here  would 
wither  and  die :  food  to  nourish  and  sustain  its  millions ; 
raw  material  for  its  shops,  and  a  market  for  its  products. 
From  no  other  source  than  the  American  farmer  could 
the  two  former  be  obtained ;  and  where  in  the  wide  world 
are  there  purchasers  who  could  furnish  a  market  for  that 
which  is  now  taken  bv  the  American  farmer  ?  The  farmer 
could  get  along  without  the  American  manufacturer,  as 
he  did  in  old  colonial  davs ;  but  what  could  the  latter  do 
without  the  American  farmer? 

How  much  more  farmers'  supplies  cost  because  of  con- 
fiscation rates  of  duties,  no  one  can  tell.  Mr.  Mulhall,  a 
noted  English  statistician,  has  already  been  quoted  as 
saying:  "The  value  of  American  manufactures  is  arti- 
ficially raised  by  protective  tariffs  fully  33 /v  over  the 
real  value."  If  the  increase  of  artificial  value  did  not 
approach  this  per  cent.,  why  the  need  of  509^   duties? 

Governor  Cummings  of  Iowa  in  an  interview  reported 
in  the  Outlook  of  September  20,  1902,  when  asked  for  an 
example  of  a  monopoly  which  should  be  deprived  of  pro- 
tection,  replied:   "Well,  take  tin  plate  and  steel  rails: 


Cost  of  Farmers''  Supplies  Increased.  67 

take  barbed  wire,  wliicli  has  been  an  absolute  monopoly 
for  four  or  five  years.  The  prices  of  this  and  kindred 
articles  are  exorbitant  because  of  the  monopoly,  as  I 
have  discovered."  When  asked  how  much  too  high  the 
price  of  these  articles  was,  the  Governor  replied:  "About 
100%."  He  also  added:  "The  tariff  question  is  more  or 
less  involved  in  what  is  called  the  trust  question,  because 
of  the  market  tendencv  of  the  times.  This  tendencv  is 
towards  combination. ' ' 

The  Outlook  of  October  25,  1902,  presents  views  of 
other  western  men.  These  were  interviewed  by  a  staff 
correspondent  of  that  paper.  We  give  extracts.  Ex- 
Senator  Washburn  of  Minneapolis  "declared  himself  to 
have  been  what  may  be  called  an  extreme  protectionist. ' ' 
' '  I  believe  the  doctrine  of  protection  has  been  vindicated 
by  results.  Under  its  influence  great  industries  have 
grown  up  from  small  beginnings.  They  have  now 
reached  a  point  where  they  no  longer  need  protection. 
Unnecessary  protection,  however,  has  enabled  them  to 
develop  into  great  monopolies.  Certainly  those  pro- 
tected industries  which  have  smothered  competition  have 
forfeited  any  rights  which  they  now  have  to  the  benefit 
of  protective  duties.  Sheltered  as  they  are  by  the  Ding- 
ley  tariff,  they  make  profits  of  from  25  to  100%."  "A 
tariff  revision  is  inevitable;  the  sentiment  for  it  in  this 
section  of  the  country  is  general,  deep,  unpartisan,  and 
is  daily  increasing  in  force.  The  revision  planks  in  the 
Eepublican  platforms  in  this  State  aiid  Iowa  were  in- 
spired by  a  desire  for  wider  markets  on  the  part  of  mill- 
ers, lumber-dealers  and  other  business  men;  while  there 
is  a  righteous  indignation  on  the  part  of  farmers,  house- 
builders,  railwav  contractors  and  others  at  the  enormous 
prices   of  barbed   wire,   Imnber,   glass,   steel   rails   and 


68  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

paper."  ''Eevision  should  be  made,  first,  on  general 
principles,  and  further,  with  a  view  of  its  effect  on  the 
combinations  which  are  now  becoming  monopolies,  and 
thus  fixing  prices  on  all  commodities  produced  in  this 
country.  Politicians  may  as  well  understand  first  as  last 
that  our  people  are  not  going  to  put  themselyes  perma- 
nently under  the  yoke  of  commercial  slavery,  which  is 
the  logical  and  inevitable  outcome  of  tolerating  the  pres- 
ent outrageous  trusts  and  monopolies.  To  this  a  proud 
people  will  never  consent." 

Judge  Birdsall,  Colonel  Henderson's  successor  as  Con- 
gressional candidate,  declared  that  ''Iowa  Kepublicans 
believe  in  the  greatest  good  to  the  greatest  number;  but 
what  is  the  situation!  Our  people  are  being  depressed 
by  the  greed  and  avarice  of  a  few  men.  Home  competi- 
tion no  longer  regulates  the  prices  of  certain  commodi- 
ties. We  propose  so  to  readjust  the  tariff  as  to  force 
monopolies  into  competition  with  the  markets  of  the 
world. ' ' 

Again  Governor  Cummins  of  Iowa.  He  said :  ' '  We 
must  tell  ambitious  promoters  that  they  have  got  to 
choose  between  their  monopolies  and  the  tariff;  they  can- 
not have  both."  "The  producer  uses  excessive  duties 
as  a  club  to  enforce  more  than  a  just  price  for  what  he 
produces.  If  there  were  no  tariff,  or  a  low  tariff  on  cer- 
tain schedules,  the  shelter  to  the  formation  of  some  mo- 
nopolies would  be  withdrawn."  ''Protection  once  shielded 
American  labor  and  was  a  mine  for  lawful  profit;  it  now 
fosters  industrial  piracy  and  monopoly." 

In  his  letter  of  acceptance  of  nomination  for  the  office 
of  Governor  of  Massachusetts,  Mr.  Wm.  L.  Douglas  says 
in  part:  "Careful  estimates  show  that  the  average  tax 
per  family  was  about  $111.    Of  this  tax  $16.52  per  family 


Cost  of  Farmers^  Supplies  Increased.  69 

went  to  tlie  government.    Over  $94  went  to  the  trusts  and 
other  protected  interests." 

The  Situation"  is  Now  Before  Us. 

Because  of  their  defenseless  trade  position  the  agri- 
cultural masses  are  selling  their  products  on  a  level  with 
the  poorest  paid  (the  agricultural)  of  the  ''pauper  labor 
of  Europe";  while  they  are  buying  their  supplies  in  a 
monopolized  market  at  prices  so  high  that  50%  duties 
are  thought  required  to  keep  out  foreign  competition. 

Put  in  another  form:  while  the  farmers  pay  for  what 
they  buy  in  gold  dollars  held  at  a  high  premium,  they 
receive  for  what  they  sell  depreciated  currency  which  the 
manufacturers  will  not  take  back  at  more  than  seventy- 
five  cents  on  a  dollar.  This  condition  is  largely  due  to 
the  protective  system,  of  which  it  has  been  said  it  pro- 
tects American  industry. 


70  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

How  THE  Farmer  is  Subjected  to  Most  Unfair  Trade 
Conditions — The  Strong  Trade  Posi- 
tion OF  Manufacture. 

The  two  great  producing  industries  of  the  nation  are 
agriculture  and  manufacture.  A  third  industry,  mining, 
is  sometimes  classed  with  the  first  of  these,  and  again 
with  the  last.  The  two  great  connecting  links  between 
the  two  divisions  of  producing  industries  are  trade  and 
transportation.  Domestic  and  personal  service  and  the 
professions  are  built  on  these  four  industries.  It  is 
apparent,  then,  that  the  products  of  the  field  and  of  the 
shop  form  the  basis  of  all  occupations.  The  individuals 
of  these  industries  take  of  the  other  a  greater  value  of 
products  than  is  taken  by  the  individuals  of  any  other 
branch  of  occupation.  Owing  to  inequality  in  trade  posi- 
tion the  farmer  is  forced  to  consent  to  a  most  unfair 
exchange ;  and  here  we  have  the  chief  cause  of  the  decline 
of  agricultural  prosperity.  Put  in  definite  language :  the 
cause  of  such  decline  is  the  strong  trade  position  of  man- 
ufacture on  the  one  hand,  and  the  defenseless  trade  posi- 
tion of  agriculture  on  the  other  hand. 

In  this  chapter  we  consider  the  trade  position  of  man- 
ufacture. 

Most  of  the  time  from  1860  to  1900,  while  there  has 
been  a  great  demand  for  manufactured  products,  there 
has  been  a  great  surplus  of  agricultural  products.  But 
as  this  feature  will  be  taken  up  in  the  next  chapter  we 


The  Strong  Trade  Position  of  Manufacture.  71 

merely  mention  it  here  as  showing  how  favorable  to  man- 
ufacture were  market  conditions. 

Manufacturees  in  Position  to  Adjust  Supply  to 

Demand. 

Not  only  has  there  been  a  great  demand  for  manufac- 
tured products  because  of  the  rapid  industrial  develop- 
ment of  a  new  country,  but  the  industry  is  one  that  can 
protect  itself  when  production  threatens  to  outrun  de- 
mand. Price  is  thus  maintained  in  bad  years  or  at  least 
held  to  a  far  higher  level  than  would  be  the  case  if  the 
supply  of  products  were  not  under  control.  When  prod- 
ucts begin  to  accumulate,  by  concert  of  action  the  mills 
can  be  run  fewer  hours,  or  a  portion  of  the  workmen  laid 
off,  or  the  mills  shut  down  for  davs  or  weeks.  Some- 
times  it  is  said  that  rival  establishments  are  paid  to 
remain  idle.  In  these  ways  manufacturers  can  protect 
their  interests,  but  largely  at  the  expense  of  their  work- 
men. 

Farmers  have  no  such  control  over  production,  as 
months  before  it  is  known  what  the  harvest  will  be. the 
seeds  are  x)laced  in  the  ground. 

In  manufacture  cost  of  production  can  be  ascertained, 
as  the  items  of  cost  are  in  terms  of  dollars  and  cents. 
The  resulting  advantage  is  that  a  person  will  stubbornly 
refuse  to  sell  for  less  than  the  cost.  Price  is  thus  held 
nearer  to  a  fair  level  than  it  otherwise  would  be.  This 
is  worth  a  great  deal  to  all  in  that  line.  When  cost  is 
unknown  the  seller's  position  is  weak.  He  can  give  no 
reason  for  his  price  and  does  not  know  but  what  he  can 
afford  to  sell  for  less.  Furthermore,  if  a  man  finds  after 
fair  trial  that  he  cannot  obtain  cost  price,  he  under- 
stands without  a  long  ruinous  delay  that  he  must  quit  the 


72  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

business.  This  is  not  only  for  his  own  advantage,  but 
his  early  forcing  out  improves  the  chance  of  those  who 
remain.    Competition  is  less  intense. 

Again,  manufacture  is  divided  into  several  hundred 
non-competing  groups. 

The  census  of  1900  groups  the  industry  under  348 
heads.  Opposite  the  name  of  each  division  is  given  the 
number  of  establishments,  the  amount  of  capital  invested, 
average  number  of  wage-earners  with  total  wages  paid, 
the  cost  of  material,  and  the  value  of  products,  including 
custom  and  repair  work.  A  great  many  of  the  divisions 
evidently  include  several  distinctly  separate  branches. 
So  it  is  quite  probable  that  manufacture  is  divided  into 
more  than  400  non-competing  groups. 

Let  those  who  are  incredulous  of  such  a  number  stroll 
through  the  rooms  of  a  department  store,  or  along  the 
streets  of  a  populous  city  with  its  brilliant  show  windows, 
and  note  the  great  variety  of  products  exhibited.  To  a 
large  extent  each  one  of  them  indicates  a  separate  trade 
or  industrial  group. 

This  division  was  largely  brought  about  by  the  factory 
system  which  caused  manufacturers  generally  to  pursue 
a  single  specialty.  For  it  was  seen  that  where  attention 
was  centred  upon  a  single  object,  or  a  part  of  a  single 
object,  production  being  reduced  to  a  few  processes,  ma- 
chinery could  be  invented  most  nicely  adapted  to  exact 
requirements — the  result  being  economy  of  material  and 
far  greater  efficiency  in  production,  which  increased  the 
size  of  the  profits. 

Again,  this  division  into  groups  comes  from  the  nature 
of  the  many  kinds  of  raw  material,  and  the  adaptation  of 
the  finished  product  to  supply  a  great  variety  of  human 
wants.    The  metals,  wood,  leather,  cotton  and  wool  com- 


The  Strong  Trade  Position  of  Manufacture.  73 

prise  a  large  part  of  the  grand  divisions  of  raw  material ; 
from  these  there  are  branches  which  subdivide  into  many 
lines  of  distinct  industries. 

It  is  easy  to  see  that  there  is  no  competition  between 
men  engaged  in  producing  iron  and  steel  products  and 
others  in  the  woolen  industry.  Is  there  any  between  the 
tanners  of  leather  and  those  who  turn  this  material  into 
shoes !  or  still  others  who  make  horse  harnesses,  or  belt- 
ing, or  leather  pocketbooks  ?  In  the  iron  and  steel  indus- 
try is  there  any  competition  between  the  manufacture  of 
wire  and  axes  ?  of  those  who  make  plows  and  carpenters ' 
tools?  of  those  who  construct  mowing  machines  and 
steam  engines !  Probably  there  are  more  than  a  hundred 
products  made  entirely,  or  largely,  of  steel  and  iron 
where  there  is  no  competition  between  the  makers.  Often- 
times these  are  as  distinctly  separate  trades  as  though 
belonging  to  different  grand  divisions. 

Now,  if  we  liken  the  manufacturing  industry  to  a  huge 
checker-board  marked  with  400  squares,  each  one  of 
which  represents  an  industrial  group,  it  will  readily  be 
perceived  that  when  instead  of  general,  indiscriminate 
competition  throughout  the  entire  mass,  competition  in 
each  case  is  confined  to  individuals  of  the  same  group, 
the  industrial  classes  occup}'  a  vastly  more  favorable 
position.  Suppose,  instead  of  a  manufacturer's  following 
a  single  specialty,  he  carried  on  half  a  dozen.  The  pro- 
portionate extent  to  which  these  would  be  turned  out 
would  vary.  If  the  market  price  of  one  increased,  more 
units  of  that  class  would  be  produced  to  the  partial  neg- 
lect of  the  less  remunerative.  TNHien  the  price  of  another 
kind  indicated  greater  profit,  more  of  these  units  would 
be  turned  out.    The  see-saw  would  be  continuous. 

Suppose,  further,  that  in  another  shop  six  classes  of 


74  TJie  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

products  were  manufactured,  some  of  the  same  kind  as 
made  in  the  first  shop,  and  that  the  same  see-saw  opera- 
tion went  on  here.  Xow  let  these  two  be  representative 
of  all  the  men  engaged  in  manufacture,  each  one  follow- 
ing several  specialties,  and  each  producing  the  most  of 
what  at  the  time  seemed  to  promise  the  greater  profit. 
It  is  evident  the  industrv  would  be  in  a  state  of  dire  con- 
fusion.  No  one  could  make  calculation  of  what  the  mar- 
ket could  absorb  of  anything.  No  one  could  tell  how 
much  of  this  or  that  would  at  any  time  be  thrown  on  the 
market.  With  some  products  the  market  would  be 
flooded ;  there  would  be  a  scarcity  of  some  other  products. 
The  price  would  not  be  determined  by  cost  at  all,  but  by 
the  relative  scarcity  or  abundance  of  the  thing  in  the 
market.    This  is  the  position  of  the  farming  community. 

The  patent  system  is  another  defense  against  compe- 
tition, far  more  so  than  was  intended  when  the  measure 
became  a  law.  According  to  report,  not  only  are  patents 
sometimes  re-issued  without  justifiable  cause,  but  these 
at  times  are  brought  up  and  put  to  sleep,  as  the  expres- 
sion is;  that  is,  when  a  new  patent  comes  on  the  mar- 
ket that  would  involve  the  substitution  of  new  machinery, 
instead  of  waiting  for  a  rival  to  avail  himself  of  the  val- 
uable invention  to  turn  out  products  at  a  lower  cost,  the 
manufacturer  often  buys  the  patent  and  then  pigeon- 
holes the  new  designs.  He  will  not  use  them  or  let  any- 
body else.  Dangerous  competition  is  prevented  both  by 
the  re-issue  of  patents,  and  by  putting  valuable  inven- 
tions out  of  other  people 's  reach. 

We  pass  now  to  active,  personal  measures  of  defense 
against  competition,  which  is  by  those  of  the  same  trade 
co-operating  together,  or  taking  action  calculated  to  hold 
price  up;  for  to  a  great  extent  those  in  the  same  line  of 


The  Strong  Trade  Position  of  Manufacture  75 

business,  instead  of  bidding  against  each  other  to  secure 
trade,  work  in  various  ways  to  maintain  price.  Note  the 
advantageous  position  in  manufacture  for  co-operating 
with  each  other. 

In  1900  there  was  an  average  of  from  seven  to  eight 
workmen  to  each  proprietor  or  firm.  Many  firms  employ 
from  50  to  100  workingmen.  Steel  and  iron  show  ah 
average  of  333  wage-earners.  It  is  seen  that  only  a  few 
of  the  men  engaged  in  manufacture  have  anything  to  do 
with  determining  price.  The  fewer  that  need  to  be 
consulted  the  easier,  as  a  rule,  to  form  price  agreements. 
To  this  it  can  be  added  that  where  the  object  is  to  get  the 
higher  price  the  assent  of  not  more  than  a  majority  of 
the  proprietors  of  a  group,  sometimes  not  more  than  a 
half  dozen,  would  be  required  for  the  fixing  of  prices. 
The  business  sense  of  the  rest  would  operate  to  bring 
them  into  line. 

Furthermore,  the  few  men  of  each  group  who  decide 
what  price  shall  be  are  located  in  the  large  towns  and 
cities  in  easy  reach  of  each  other  by  steam  or  electric 
roads,  telephone  and  telegraph.  How  near  manufac- 
turers are  located  to  each  other  is  indicated  by  the  fact 
that  about  half  of  the  value  of  manufactured  products 
in  1900  was  returned  from  four  states — New  York,  Penn- 
sylvania, Illinois  and  Massachusetts. 

Now  as  to  the  way  of  co-operating  or  coming  to  under- 
standing. These  range  all  the  way  from  a  mere  practice 
of  conforming  to  the  price  charged  by  others,  with  no 
expressed  agreement,  to  legally  written  documents  to  sell 
at  certain  rates  with  heavv  fines  for  all  violations  of 
agreements.  Many  times,  associations  are  formed  with 
officers  and  bv-laws  the  more  surelv  to  hold  individuals 
to  contract.     Still  closer  unions  are  formed  by  placing 


76  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

independent  establishments  nnder  the  control  of  the  same 
board  of  directors.  Sometimes  large  establishments 
prevent  the  lowering  of  the  price  of  their  product  when 
in  the  hands  of  retailers  by  fixing  the  price  of  such  goods 
after  they  have  passed  through  the  hands  of  jobber  and 
wholesale  dealer.  Those  who  fail  to  conform  cannot 
obtain  a  new  stock  of  such  goods.  Such  action  is  far 
more  warranted  than  where  retailers  are  not  allowed  to 
sell  similar  goods  manufactured  by  rival  firms. 

From  the  following  quotation  it  is  seen  that  Mr.  James 
Logan,  manager  of  the  United  States  Envelope  Com- 
pany, located  in  Worcester,  Mass.,  denies  that  there  is  an 
agreement  or  understanding  between  manufacturers,  but 
it  is  seen  that  the  method  he  indicates  eliminates  compe- 
tition largely,  if  not  entirely,  which  is  the  chief  thing 
sought.  He  says :  ' '  The  price-list  established  by  the  con- 
solidated coriDoration  is  not  guessed  at  by  the  rule-of- 
thumb,  but  is  wrought  out  on  a  scientific  basis  of  account- 
ing, and  that  price-list  is  the  base  from  which  not  only 
the  consolidated  corporation  does  business,  but  every  one 
of  its  competitors,  not  that  the  competitors  of  the  large 
corporations  altogether  adhere  to  either  list  prices  or 
standards  of  quality,  but  the  list  as  established  is  the 
base  line  from  which  they  make  all  their  calculations. 
I  believe  I  am  perfectly  safe  in  saying  that  in  not  one  sin- 
gle industry  does  the  large  corporation  control  the  market. 
It  maintains  at  great  cost  a  system  by  which  its  costs  of 
production  are  very  accurately  determined,  and  when  a 
new  price-list  is  issued,  all  competitors  will  duplicate 
that  list  within  forty-eight  hours,  or  just  as  soon  as  they 
can  get  it  through  the  printing-office.  They  are  not  called 
upon  to  exercise  one  particle  of  judgment,  and  they 
don't;  they  simply  follow  copy,  and  they  follow  it  so 


The  Strong  Trade  Position  of  Manufacture.  11 

accurately  tliat  if  there  should  happen  to  be  a  blunder  in 
the  list,  they  will  duplicate  the  blunder.  From  the  fact 
that  all  manufacturers  print  practically  the  same  list, 
many  persons  labor  under  the  mistaken  notion  that  there 
is  an  agreement  or  understanding  among  all  manufac- 
turers, but  such  is  not  the  case. 

''Xow  suppose  there  was  no  large  corporation  to 
establish  a  price-list  or  base-line;  suppose  that  not  only 
all  of  the  competitors  of  the  so-called  trust  or  large  cor- 
poration, and  also  each  of  the  constitutent  companies 
which  make  up  the  larger  corporation,  were  making  their 
own  list-price  with  absolutely  nothing  to  guide  them 
except  the  very  imperfect  data  which  some  of  them  for- 
merly kept.  I  have  not  a  particle  of  hesitation  in  saying 
that  in  the  next  three  years  half  of  them  would  go  out  of 
business."^ 

Here  we  have  direct  evidence  from  a  prominent  mem- 
ber of  a  corporation  of  how  all  those  in  a  branch  of  indus- 
try are  brought  into  unity  of  action.  It  would  take  a  per- 
son capable  of  pointing  out  the  difference  between  half 
a  dozen  bushels  of  corn  and  six  bushels  of  corn  to  show 
material  difference  in  the  effect  produced  by  this  method 
and  a  direct  understanding.  It  seems  everything  is 
determined  by  the  large  corporation  of  a  branch  of  indus- 
try, and  these  can  charge  for  the  different  items  of  cost 
what  they  please.  Xor  do  we  understand  that  the  base- 
line, cost  of  production,  is  identical  with  the  figures  on 
the  price-list.  It  is  a  dead-line  that  cannot  be  gone  below 
with  safety.  What  sort  of  competition  is  this  where  all 
rise  and  fall  following  the  motion  of  the  big  mogul  ? 

By  the  methods  indicated,  and  still  others,  trade  is  put 
in  harness,  free  competition  is  prevented,  and  price  is 

^  Quoted  from  paper  read  before  Worcester,  Mass.,  Economic  Club. 


78  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

held  at  a  high,  unfair  level.  Price  is  no  longer  deter- 
mined by  cost,  but  all  it  is  thought  the  trade  will  bear  is 
exacted. 

Said  the  Midvale  Steel  Company,  in  a  letter^  sent  to 
the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  protesting  against 
change  in  the  rates  of  duties  on  metals,  etc.,  ''It  is  well 
known  to  the  honorable  members  of  the  committee  that 
the  price  at  which  nearly  every  article  manufactured  in 
this  country  is  sold  is  not  based  on  its  cost  so  much  as  it 
is  fixed  by  agreements  or  understandings  between  manu- 
facturers, who  regulate  the  amount  of  product  and  the 
output  to  the  factories,  points  of  deliveries,  and  the 
prices  and  terms  at  which  manufactured  article  is  sold." 

A  one-price  system  has  become  widely  prevalent. 
Group  monopoly  has  become  an  established  fact.  The 
people  are  delivered  into  the  power  of  corporations,  of 
whom  Senator  Hoar  said  (see  next  chapter)  they  have 
no  soul  and  no  conscience,  and  are  not  zealous  for  honor 
or  reputation  except  so  far  as  these  are  essential  to  get- 
ting money. 

But  to  a  large  portion  of  these  industrial  groups  one 
thing  more  was  essential  to  the  perfect  working  of 
monopoly  schemes:  they  must  he  shielded  from  the  effect 
of  importations  from  abroad  of  products  similar  to  their 
oivn.  Here  comes  in  manufacturers'  defense  by  govern- 
ment against  competition,  which  is 

The  Protective  System. 

Of  what  avail  would  be  group  combinations  if  over  the 
Canadian  border  and  from  every  seaport  similar  prod- 
ucts had  free  course?     Merchants  would  then  fill  their 


*  Published  in  Semi-Weekly  X.  Y.  Evening  Post,  Jan.  27,  1897. 


The  Strong  Trade  Position  of  Manufacture.  79 

stores  with  the  foreign  goods  and  the  high-priced  prod- 
ucts of  monopoly  would  remain  unsold.  To  prevent  this, 
there  are  what  are  called  protective  duties. 

The  effect  of  these  in  increasing  the  cost  of  what  the 
farmer  buys  has  been  told  in  preceding  chapters. 

To  sum  up :  Manufacture  is,  to  a  great  extent,  organ- 
ized to  obtain  trade  advantage.  Occupying  a  naturally 
strong  position,  by  many  devices  manufacturers  have 
aimed  to,  and  largely  succeeded  in  gaiuing  control  of  the 
Americaji  market.  Divided  into  several  hundred  non- 
competing  groups,  in  very  many  of  these  the  individuals 
composing  each  are  in  zealous  collusion  to  hold  price  at  a 
high  artificial  level  by  destroying  the  effect  of  mutual 
competition.  At  the  same  time  their  associations  have 
so  great  influence  at  "Washington  as  to  prevent  foreign 
competition,  except  under  such  conditions  as  nullify  the 
effect. 

To  make  all  future  resistance  to  this  trade  tyranny 
imDossible,  in  1895  the  Manufacturers '  National  Associa- 
tion  was  organized,  and  an  address  was  sent  out  to  induce 
all  manufacturers  to  connect  themselves  with  it.  The 
address  stated  that  ''the  general  purpose  proposed  for 
the  national  association  was  to  obtain  the  advantage  of 
united  action  for  the  promotion  of  the  interests  of  Ameri- 
can manufacturers,  both  at  home  and  abroad."  ''If  we 
shall  have  a  national  organization,  the  power  will  be 
employed  with  all  the  force  of  concentration  and  always, 
we  believe,  with  advantage  both  for  manufacturers  and 
for  the  nation."  It  is  stated  that  the  next  "convention 
will  consist  of  over  four  hundred  delegates,  all  manufac- 
turers. ' ' 

President  Dolan  made  further  explanation.  "First  of 
all,  and  of  more  value  than  all  else,  is  the  principle  that 


80  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

the  home  market,  the  greatest  of  all  markets,  the  only 
market  over  which  our  control  is  absolute,  shall  be  held 
firmh^  for  our  own  trade.  Quite  of  secondary  impor- 
tance, but  still  of  large  importance,  is  the  theory  that  we 
should  reach  out  for  all  the  foreign  trade  that  may  be 
had  without  sacrifices  at  home,  etc."  ''A  truly  National 
Association  of  American  Manufacturers,  speaking  with 
right  and  by  authority  for  the  entire  body  of  manufac- 
turers of  the  country,  can  accomplish  these  results,  or 
any  other  results  just  right  and  of  genuine  value  to  the 
nation,  at  which  it  aims." 

This  association,  by  which  it  was  most  sincerely  hoped 
''great  and  patriotic  purposes"  will  be  accomplished,  is 
purely  a  manufacturers'  organization,  and  careful  pro- 
vision was  made  to  keep  it  from  ever  becoming  anything 
else.  The  purpose  is  to  unite  and  concentrate  the  whole 
power  of  the  industry  so  that  they  can  obtain  anything 
they  desire  of  national  legislation.  How  was  the  abso- 
lute control  asserted  by  President  Dolan  obtained!  By 
the  groups  working  together  to  suppress  the  effect  of 
mutual  competition,  and  the  exclusion  by  the  tariff  of 
foreign  competition.  The  ''great  and  patriotic  pur- 
poses" of  holding  absolute  control  of  the  home  market, 
etc.,  could  never  have  been  accomplished  if  only  the  com- 
paratively few  "trusts"  and  combines  took  a  hand.  It 
was  brought  about,  and  monopolies  established  by  the 
entire  body  working  each  in  its  own  group  or  circle. 

Senator  Lodge  of  Massachusetts  is  reported  to  have 
said  that  the  tariff  has  nothing  to  do,  or  no  coimection 
with  trusts  and  monopolies.  Such  a  statement,  if  made, 
is  as  far  from  the  truth  as  the  east  is  from  the  west. 
Protection  in  this  country  has  been  the  starting-point  of 
the  whole  nest  of  iniquity.     Doubtless,  no  less  than  two- 


The  Strong  Trade  Position  of  Manufacture.  81 

thirds  of  the  oppressive  monopolies  of  the  present  day 
are  the  direct  result  of  the  prevention  of  foreign  compe- 
tition by  the  tariff.  And  this  robbery  of  the  people  does 
not  stop  at  production,  but  is  often  carried  on  through  the 
various  channels  of  trade  down  to  the  consumer.  Here 
is  some  interesting  reading  touching. on  this  point  from 
the  Iron  Age  of  Oct.  10,  1901:  ^'The  question  of  the 
grading  of  prices  to  the  various  classes  of  trade  has 
always  been  a  difficult  one  for  manufacturers  to  deter- 
mine." "The  manner  in  which  this  question  has  been 
decided  bv  the  multitude  of  consolidations  and  combina- 
tions  of  the  past  few  years  is  significant.  AVith  signal 
unanimity  they  have  adopted  a  policy  in  the  grading  of 
their  prices  which  recognizes  the  jobber  more  thoroughly 
and  completely  than  before.  This  has  been  done  by  not 
only  establishing  a  wide  differential  between  the  jobber 
and  the  retailer,  but  by  making  a  list  of  who,  are  to  be 
ranked  as  jobbers  and  to  whom  alone  jobbers'  prices  can 
properly  be  given."  ''To  have  adopted  a  different  pol- 
icy would,  moreover,  have  alienated  the  wholesale  trade 
and  put  an  immediate  and  troublesome  obstacle  in  the 
way  of  maintaining  the  high  prices  which  had  been  estab- 
lished. The  jobbers,  too,  were  prompt  in  making  earnest 
and  emphatic  appeals  to  the  associated  manufacturers 
for  ample  protection."  To  the  arrangement  made  the 
retailers  objected,  as  formerly  they  could  buy  close  to 
what  the  jobbers  had  to  pay,  now  "under  this  system 
called  to  pay  a  broad  jobbers'  profit  on  these  goods." 

From  the  Iron  Age,  same  date  as  above.  The 
Seventh  National  Hardware  Convention  was  held  at 
Cleveland.  From  the  Treasurer's  Keport:  "Our  atten- 
tion has  been  called  to  the  system  adopted  by  some  man- 
ufacturers of  notifying  the  trade  on  postal  cards  and 
6 


82  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

other  printed  communication  of  changes  in  prices.  These 
are  very  liable  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  consumers.'' 
''We  hope  that  during  the  year  an  additional  number  of 
our  members  will  adopt  the  system  of  adding  to  the  fac- 
tory cost  of  goods  a  proper  percentage  to  cover  the 
expense  of  distribution  before  arriving  at  the  true  cost. ' ' 
■  Not  onlv  are  the  manufacturers  often  in  collusion  to 
prevent  all  competition  among  independent  factories, 
but  they  can  control  price  through  the  intermediate 
hands  that  pass  the  goods  on  to  the  consumer.  By  this 
means  the  trading  world,  both  wholesaler  and  retailer, 
come  in  for  an  equal  degree  of  the  high  profits  of  the 
producer.  Protection  shields  all,  and  the  accumulative 
artificial  increase  of  price  is  borne  by  the  farmer  with  no 
offset  of  advantage. 

Besides  the  desire  to  obtain  the  highest  possible  profits, 
manufacturers  often  have  another  strong  incentive  to 
hold  them  to  their  mutual  agreements.  The  nature  of 
this  is  indicated  by  a  little  item  found  in  the  New  York 
Semi-weekly  Evening  Post  of  Jan.  16,  1902:  ''The  lead- 
ing producers  of  wire  and  wire  nails ' '  held  a  conference 
at  Pittsburg.  After  agreeing  to  advance  the  price  of 
nails  comes  this  sentence:  "Forfeits  of  $10,000  for  each 
concern  were  posted  to  bind  to  the  agreed  price  and  to 
stop  the  price  cutting." 

How  far  combinations  have  extended  in  the  industrial 
world  is  indicated  by  "the  unanimous  report  of  the  com-' 
mittee  on  commercial  law  of  the  American  Bar  Associa- 
tion," made  at  its  annual  meeting  in  1903.  Here  are 
extracts:  "The  modern  combination's  primary  object  is 
to  control  trade  and  commerce  in  plain  articles  of  pro- 
duction, and  substitute  a  more  or  less  perfect  monopoly 
in  the  place  of    a  more    or    less   free    competition.     It 


The  Strong  Trade  Position  of  Manufacture.  83 

changes  entirely  the  basic  principle  of  commercial  rela- 
tion between  man  and  man. ' ' 

"Combination  as  an  economic  force  is  fast  coming  to 
take  the  place  of  competition.  The  producers  are  com- 
bining, transportation  companies  are  combining,  trades- 
men are  combining,  workmen  as  well  as  employers  are 
combining,  everything  seems  to  be  combining  in  some 
form  of  combination,  and  everybody  seems  to  be  a  com- 
biner. The  competition  that  still  remains  is  fast  dis- 
appearing. Workmen  are  refusing  to  compete  for  jobs. 
Labor  unions  are  enlarging  the  spheres  of  their  activity 
and  extending  their  operations.  The  union  of  the  employ- 
ers is  still  stronger  and  more  far-reaching  than  the  union 
of  the  workmen.  We  are  now  having  combination  of  com- 
binations. The  United  States  Steel  Corporation  is  a  com- 
bination of  a  dozen  heretofore  competing  producers,  who 
themselves  were  combinations  of  still  other  producers, 
and  these  in  turn,  often  of  combinations  of  still  others. 
To  trace  them  back  to  their  beginnings  is  like  discovering 
all  the  multitude  of  sources  that  go  to  make  up  the  vol- 
ume of  the  swollen  Mississipi)i. ' ' 

The  great  class  of  which  it  is  not  true  that  they  are 
combining  is  the  agricultural ;  and  it  is  significant  that  in 
the  above  indictment  no  mention  is  made  of  the  men  so 
engaged.  As  usual,  the  fact  of  the  farmer's  existence 
was  forgotten  or  ignored. 

To  what  extent  the  nation  is  brought  under  bondage  is 
indicated  by  Mr.  Franklin  Pierce  in  his  book, ' '  The  Tariff 
and  the  Trusts."  We  give  an  illustration  of  his  state- 
ments, pages  65  and  (^Q:  "The  Pittsburg  Plate  Griass 
Company  has  a  capital  of  $10,000,000.  In  1899  it  con- 
trolled 682  out  of  946  pots  in  the  manufacture  of  glass, 
and  it  increased  the  prices  of  plate    glass  within  three 


84  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

years  150%,  as  described  in  the  prior  chapter.  It  had  an 
understanding  in  1900  with  other  companies,  and  thus 
controlled  the  prices  of  plate  glass.  According  to  the 
testimony  of  Mr.  Fred  Gr.  Elliott  (the  manager  of  John 
Lucas  Company)  before  the  Industrial  Commission  on 
Dec.  20,  1900,  the  Pittsburg  Plate  Griass  Company  sent  to 
the  firm  of  John  Lucas  &  Comi^-anv  a  letter,  of  which  the 
following  is  a  copy : 

Philadelphia,  Pa.,  Oct.  27,  1900. 

Gentlemen  :  We  have  just  been  advised  by  our  general 
office  that  any  permission  that  has  been  given  to  the  job- 
bers whereby  they  were  allowed  to  import  plate  glass 
must  be  at  once  withdrawn,  and  we  hereby  beg  to  notify 
you  to  this  effect. 

We  will  ask  vou  to  send  to  this  office  at  once  a  memo- 
randum  of  any  foreign  glass  which  you  may  have  ordered 
which  you  have  not  received.  Please  include  in  this 
memorandum  that  which  mav  be  alreadv  on  the  water,  as 
well  as  the  portion  that  has  not  yet  been  shipped  from 
abroad.  Kindh"  give  this  matter  your  prompt  attention, 
and  oblige. 

Yours  trulv, 

Pittsburg  Plate  Glass  Company." 

So  much  for  the  impudence  of  the  trusts  in  advancing 
prices  and  controlling  foreign  trade.  Here  is  more, 
showing  the  tremendous  increase  in  prices  permitted  by 
trade  regulations  and  tariff  legislation.  We  quote  from 
the  Springfield  Weekly  Eepublican  of  Nov.  21,  1907 : 
' '  There  appears  in  the  current  issue  of  American  Indus- 
tries, organ  of  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers, 
as  severe  an  arraignment  of  high  tariff  iniquities  as  is 
often  heard,  and  it  comes  from  a  protected  manufac- 
turer, H.  E.  Miles,  president  of  the  National  Association 
of  Implements  and  Vehicle  Manufacturers.     He  starts 


The  Strong  Trade  Position  of  Manufacture.  85 

off  with  the  very  frank  admission  that  "I  have  made 
monev  everv  vear  ont  of  the  tariff  graft."  He  goes  on 
to  say:  "Under  this  tariff,  those  who  supply  the  facto- 
ries I  am  interested  in  with  their  material,  have  consoli- 
dated or  formed  trusts  and  have  raised  the  prices  25  to 
50%.  All  those  years  I  have,  as  before,  made  my  sale 
price  on  a  percentage  of  costs,  and  when  the  tariff  pets 
raised  their  prices,  as  they  did  $50,000  to  me,  I  made  the 
charge  against  the  jobber  $60,000,  and  I  know  beyond 
question  that  he  also  figured  on  a  percentage  basis,  and 
charged  more  than  $70,000  for  the  $60,000  he  paid  me. 
The  product  went  through  one  or  two  other  hands  before 
reaching  the  consumer.  The  $50,000  I  paid  becomes 
about  $100,000  to  the  agricultural  consumer. ' ' 

In  this  connection  a  paragraph  in  the  Springfield 
"Weekly  Eepublican  of  Dec.  5,  1907,  is  of  interest.  The 
will  of  Chas.  H.  Deere,  implement  manufacturer,  evi- 
dently of  Rock  Island,  111.,  shows  property  valued  at  $20,- 
000,000,  all  of  which  goes  far  to  sustain  the  truth  of  state- 
ments made  bv  a  Worcester  blacksmith  to  the  author; 
one  of  which  was  that  shafts  that  a  while  ago  he  bought 
for  $1.75  were  now  sold  for  over  $11.  This  statement 
was  made  in  November,  1907. 

Mr.  Miles '  remarks  show  one  of  the  ways  by  which  the 
tariff  increases  the  cost  of  articles  produced  in  the 
United  States.  The  ''tariff  pets,"  that  furnish  raw 
material,  form  associations  or  combinations  and  force 
price  way  up.  Then  each  succeeding  intermediate 
between  these  and  the  consmner  compute  the  same  i)er- 
centage  of  profit  as  before  on  these  greatly  increased 
values. 

The  plate  glass  letter  reveals  another  feature  of  this 
adorable  tariff  measure.     In  spite    of    our    exorbitant 


86  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

duties,  it  is  evident  from  this  letter  that  home  prices  are 
so  high  that  jobbers  can  profitably  import  foreign  goods. 
They  are  intimidated  from  doing  so  by  these  "tarii^ 
pets,"  who  are,  as  claimed  by  Mr.  Dolan,  then  President 
of  the  Manufacturers'  National  Association,  in  absolute 
control  of  the  markets  of  the  United  States. 

The  advantageous  trade  position  of  manufacture 
comes  from  control  of  the  market,  and  this  control  from 
the  suppression  of  competition.  This  is  brought  about 
or  caused : 

By  power  to  adjust  supply  to  demand. 

By  knowledge  of  cost  of  production. 

Is  greatly  promoted  by  the  division  of  the  industry 
into  hundreds  of  non-competing  groups. 

By  the  patent  system. 

By  mutual  co-operation  or  such  action  as  tends  to  pre- 
vent fall  in  price. 

By  the  protective  system. 


Defenseless  Trade  Position  of  Agriculture .  87 


CHAPTER  VII. 

The  Defenseless  Teade  Position  of  Agriculture. 

Have  tlie  leaders  in  the  agricultural  ranks  recognized 
tlie  trend  of  the  times  and  taken  measures  to  guard 
farmers  from  the  destructive  effect?  If  bugs,  or  worms, 
or  blight  threatened  the  destruction  of  crops,  the  alarm 
would  be  sounded  in  farmers'  journals,  from  agricul- 
tural colleges,  and  from  the  Agricultural  Department  at 
Washington.  But  when  the  crops  are  exchanged  for 
what  the  farmer  requires,  the  men  who  manufacture  such 
supplies,  by  organized  action,  or  by  the  enactment  of  hos- 
tile legislation,  may  work  greater  injury  than  bug,  or 
worm,  or  blight,  and  our  agricultural  leaders  look  on  in 
silence.     Why? 

The  leading  men  in  agriculture,  especially  at  the  East, 
have  confined  attention  strictly  to  production.  Their  aim 
has  been  to  have  the  farmer  produce  the  most  and  best 
at  least  expense.  There  is  the  sum  and  substance  of  all 
the  mighty  efforts  of  most  of  the  agricultural  leaders  for 
more  than  fifty  years.  Like  the  man  with  the  rake  in 
Pilgrim's  Progress,  the  eyes  of  farmers  have  been  kept 
fixed  on  the  ground,  blind  alike  to  heavenly  vision  and 
the  work  of  designing  men  robbing  them  of  the  fruit  of 
their  labor.  Year  after  year,  in  season  and  out  of  sea- 
son, the  agricultural  mind  has  been  stuffed  with  the  same 
everlasting  diet  of  production.  Much  the  same  matter 
has  been  threshed  over  and  over,  from  morn  to  night, 
from  youth  to  hoary  age.  The  doses  have  been  adminis- 
tered at  farmers '  meetings  held  in  the  winter  all  over  the 


88  The  Tariff  and  the  Fanner. 

country.  State  boards  of  agriculture  have  been  organ- 
ized in  many  of  tlie  states,  and  from  these  have  gone 
forth  thousands  of  bulk\'  secretaries'  reports,  which  now 
lie  on  shelves  hardly  ever  glanced  at.  Hundreds  of 
farmers'  papers  have  deluged  the  land  from  Maine  to 
California,  from  the  Great  Lakes  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico, 
with  tons  of — shall  we  sav  literature?  Then  there  are 
agricultural  colleges  in  many  if  not  all  of  the  states,  and 
from  these  sources  have  issued  incessant  bulletins. 
Above  all  the  rest  is  the  Agricultural  Department  at 
Washington,  and  from  this  eminence  tracts  and  expen- 
sive volumes  have  been  rained  down. 

If  it  is  true  that  ''all  work  and  no  play  makes  Jack  a 
dull  boy, ' '  how  much  more  is  it  true  that  confining  minds 
continually  to  the  same  general  topic,  with  no  change,  no 
let-up,  especially  when  this  topic  relates  to  the  very  work 
followed  all  day  long,  tends  to  weary,  stupefy,  and  dis- 
gust men  with  books  and  papers. 

Where  the  editors  of  agricultural  journals  and  speak- 
ers at  farmers'  meetings  have  shown  a  lack  of  judgment 
is  in  not  perceiving  that  to  produce  the  most  at  least 
expense  is  but  half  the  problem.  This  part  is  no  more 
essential  than  to  get  a  fair  price  for  it,  nor  so  much  so. 
If  a  better  agricultural  education  causes  a  larger  quan- 
tity to  be  thrown  on  the  market,  and  overstock  it,  the 
price  per  bushel  or  pound  will  almost  invariably  fall  so 
low  that  the  total  product  will  bring  less  than  a  lighter 
yield.  Should  this  occur,  who  but  the  consumer  is  the 
gainer?  The  farmer  has  been  required  to  harvest  the 
crop  and  carry  the  larger  yield  to  market.  For  this 
extra  expense  and  toil  he  has  received  less  than  he  would 
with  the  smaller  vield. 

An  illustration  of  the  truth  of  this  on  a  national  scale 


Defenseless  Trade  Position  of  Agriculture.  89 

is  afforded  by  the  annual  reports  of  the  Agricultural 
Department  in  regard  to  the  potato  crop.  An  examina- 
tion of  the  record  for  the  last  thirty  or  forty  years  will 
show  that,  as  a  rule,  less  has  been  received  for  the  total 
product  of  the  country  when  there  was  a  large  yield  than 
when  the  number  of  bushels  has  been  far  smaller. 

So,  too,  an  improvement  in  quality,  should  this  result 
come  from  a  more  scientific  education — if  the  change  is 
general  over  the  country — may  not  put  an  additional  dol- 
lar into  the  farmer's  pocket,  but  go  to  tickle  the  palate  of 
the  consumers.  This  is  made  plain  by  the  apple  crop. 
In  a  year  of  plenty  a  barrel  of  fine  large  apples  may  sell 
for  $1.  The  next  year,  if  there  is  a  scarcity,  a  barrel  of 
scrubs  may  fetch  $2.  This  shows,  as  far  as  the  pocket 
of  the  farmer  is  concerned,  that,  except  where  the 
improved  quality  is  in  limited  quantities,  the  higher  edu- 
cation in  this  respect  is  not  so  lucrative  as  is  generally 
supposed.  If  the  better  quality  cannot  be  obtained,  the 
inferior  article  will  bring  just  as  much ;  and  if  next  year 
farmers  all  over  the  nation  would  contract  production  to 
three-fourths  the  usual  quantity,  the  probability  is  that 
they  would  take  in  just  as  much  money.  Unless  this 
position  can  be  successfully  assailed,  it  is  evident  that 
there  has  been  an  immense  amount  of  talk  and  ink 
thrown  away  so  far  as  improving  the  condition  of  the 
farmer  is  concerned.  If  this  tongue  and  pen  energy  had 
been  expended  in  making  market  conditions  favorable 
for  agricultural  products,  not  only  would  the  financial 
position  have  been  greatly  improved,  but  the  influence  of 
the  farmer  would  have  been  far  greater,  and  the  nation 
is  in  need  of  this  conservative  influence. 

Thank  God,  the  light  is  breaking  in  one  direction.     In 
the  address  of   Mr.  X.  J.  Bachelder,  worthy   master    of 


90  The  Tariff  and  the  Fanner. 

the    National    Grange,  forty-first   annual    session,  1907, 
occurs  this  passage : 

"The  development  of  manufacturing,  transportation 
and  commercial  interests  is  not  only  an  advantage,  but  a 
necessity  to  agriculture,  but  those  interests  have  no  claim 
for  public  recognition  that  takes  precedence  over  the 
claim  of  agriculture.  This  statement  holds  true  in  regard 
to  the  estahlishment  of  policies  and  the  enactment  of 
laivs.  If  conditions  exist  under  which  the  manufacturer, 
the  railroad  manager  and  the  merchant  can  pay  prices 
for  labor  in  the  transaction  of  their  business  that  the 
farmer  cannot  afford  to  pay,  there  is  reason  to  investi- 
gate the  cause  of  such  conditions.  The  advice  of  those 
ivho  ivould  limit  the  work  of  this  great  fanners'  organ- 
ization to  a  study  of  crop  production  and  stock  feeding, 
important  and  necessary  as  these  may  be,  is  not  suggest- 
ive of  a  deep  sincerity  for  the  farmers'  interests.  It  is 
not  luise  to  leave  the  management  of  public  affairs  affect- 
ing agriculture  to  others,  inasmuch  as  ours  is  the  basic 
industry,  upon  the  prosperity  of  which  prosperity  in  all 
other  industries  depends.  The  field  of  study  and  investi- 
gation open  to  the  farmers  through  this  organization  is 
as  broad  as  the  field  open  to  any  other  class  of  people 
without  infringing  in  the  least  upon  partisan  or  sectarian 
ground.  It  is  not  only  the  fanner's  right,  hut  his  duty, 
to  engage  in  a  discussion  of  public  matters." 

The  main  object  of  producing  more  of  an  article  than 
one  consumes  is  to  obtain  the  means  of  buying  the  prod- 
ucts of  other  industries.  In  such  exchanges  the  grossest 
injustice  may  be  perpetrated.  Civilized  man  has  rarely 
scrupled  to  take  advantage  of  the  savage,  often  obtaining 
for  a  mere  bauble  that  which  was  of  great  value.  Not 
because  he  was  a  savage  was  he  cheated,  but  because 


Defenseless  Trade  Position  of  Agriculture .  91 

ignorance  gave  opportunity.  Give  the  average  business 
man  of  to-day  opportunity,  and  not  only  will  liis  own 
countr^onen  be  likely  to  be  imposed  upon  and  cheated,  but 
his  near  relatives  mav  fare  no  better.  He  is  inclined  to 
be  good  to  himself.  He  is  not  apt  to  be  deterred  by  a 
high  sense  of  honor  or  justice.  His  rule  is  not  fair 
profits,  but  get  all  he  can.  Said  Senator  Hoar  of  Massa- 
chusetts, in  his  speech  in  the  Senate  upon  trusts,  in  Jan- 
uary, 1908,  speaking  of  the  corporation  and  corporate 
control  of  wealth :  ' '  It  is  not  zealous  for  its  own  honor  or 
reputation,  except  so  far  as  its  honor  or  reputation  is 
essential  to  its  getting  money.  It  has  no  soul  and  no 
conscience.  In  general,  the  men  who  are  most  powerful 
in  its  management  can,  if  they  see  fit,  avoid  responsibility 
to  public  opinion.  They  always  expect  to  avoid  personal 
liability  for  obligations." 

Thus  spoke  a  noted  lawyer,  held  in  high  esteem  by  the 
nation,  one  of  Massachusetts'  most  prominent  Republi- 
can citizens,  one  not  given  to  making  rash  statements. 

It  is  men  like  those  to  whom  Mr.  Hoar  referred,  whom 
our  agricultural  leaders  have  left  in  full  control  to  dic- 
tate the  policy  of  the  nation,  who  insist  to-day  that  there 
shall  be  no  lowering  of  tariff  bars.  Is  it  strange,  then, 
that  the  interests  of  farmers  in  foreign  trade  have  been 
sacrificed? 

Makket  Conditions. 

Most  of  the  time  since  1860,  with  the  exception  of  war 
period  and  a  few  years  after,  there  has  been  a  great  sur- 
plus of  agricultural  products;  and  for  the  same  time, 
with  the  exception  of  a  few  years  of  depression,  a  great 
demand  for  manufactured  products. 

Since  1860  two-thirds  or  more  of  the  vast  territorial 


92  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

expanse  of  the  United  States  has  been  opened  up  for 
settlement  bv  the  railroads.  In  that  vear  there  was  some- 
thing  over  30,000  miles  of  roads  being  operated;  nowmore 
than  200,000  miles.  Eight  after  the  Civil  War  the  Home- 
stead Act,  passed  in  1862,  began  to  affect  the  situation. 
At  about  the  same  time  the  railroad  companies  began  to 
put  land  on  the  market  for  a  few  dollars  an  acre.  This 
is  the  situation  that  has  faced  the  eastern  farmer  for 
manv  vears,  anv  amount  of  land  in  the  market  that  could 
be  obtained  for  little  or  nothing.  Such  a  lure  caused  a 
tremendous  rush  of  settlers  from  the  East  and  abroad. 
In  1860  the  number  of  farms  was  2,011,077;  in  1900  the 
number  had  risen  to  5,739,657;  an  annual  average 
increase  of  92,000  farms.  The  inevitable  result  was  an 
immense  continuous  surplus  of  agricultural  products. 
During  the  very  years  when  this  ever-increasing  flood 
was  pouring  upon  the  eastern  markets,  the  doors  of  most 
foreign  nations  were  closed  against  us  by  retaliatory 
tariffs.     (See  chapter  III.) 

How  have  the  times  been  with  manufacture?  During 
the  above-mentioned  forty  years  the  opportunities 
enjoyed  for  the  gaining  of  wealth  have  far  surx)assed 
anything  told  in  history.  In  addition  to  legislative 
favors,  which  gave  manufacturers  absolute  control  of 
the  richest  markets  of  the  world,  and  provided  their 
operatives  with  the  cheax3est  food  supplies,  the  opening 
up  of  a  new  country  multiplied  business  enterprises.  The 
population  has  much  more  than  doubled  since  1860,  the 
increase  being  nearly  15,000,000  of  people.  Just  to  clothe, 
provide  shelter  and  furniture  for  this  great  increase  in 
population  all  these  years  was  a  stupendous  task.  Near- 
ly 3,000,000  new  farms  have  been  equipped  with  machin- 
ery.    Shops  and  factories  sufficient  to  give  employment 


Defenseless  Trade  Position  of  Agriculture.  93 

to  4,000,000  of  people,  who  have  connected  themselves 
with  the  industry  since  1860,  have  been  built  and  filled 
with  machinery.  Iron  ore  enough  to  provide  steel  rails 
for  more  than  170,000  miles  of  new  track  has  been  welded 
into  shape,  and  with  the  immense  number  of  cars  and 
locomotives  required,  is  now  a  part  of  our  huge  trans- 
portation system.  The  enumeration  of  services  required 
and  rendered  for  the  welfare  of  the  45,000,000  people  who 
have  come  on  the  stage  since  1860,  is  far  from  complete. 
Meanwhile,  the  work  of  caring  for  the  wants  of  the  31,- 
000,000  who  made  up  the  population  in  1860  must  not  be 
left  out.  If  all  the  magnificent  opportunities  of  the  man- 
ufacturing field  could  be  spread  out  before  the  eye,  the 
great  world  would  be  astonished  at  the  sight ;  and  if  the 
sum  total  paid  for  performance  could  be  written  out,  that 
paid  to  a  far  greater  number  of  workers  in  the  agricul- 
tural field  would  be  found  quite  insignificant.  Between 
the  price  received  where  there  is  a  large  surplus  of  prod- 
ucts and  that  obtained  where  supply  is  not  equal  to 
demand,  the  margin  is  wide. 

In  agriculture  cost  of  products  cannot  be  ascertained. 
In  rare  cases,  no  doubt,  a  close  approximation  can  be 
made,  but  it  is  safe  to  assert  that  the  exact  cost  of  no 
product  of  the  field  can  be  ascertained.  In  many  cases, 
close  calculation,  joined  to  long-continued  observation, 
note-book  in  hand,  would  give  basis  for  a  good  guess. 
But  the  problem  is  such  a  difficult  one  that  even  the  most 
intelligent  farmers  long  ago  gave  up  all  attempt  to  deter- 
mine cost.  A  volume  could  be  written  showing  why  the 
cost  of  the  various  agricultural  products  cannot  be  ascer- 
tained. In  few  words,  we  shall  go  straight  to  the  heart 
of  the  chief  difficulty. 

Here  the  cost  of  products  is  only  to  a  small  extent  in 


94  The  Tm^iff  and  the  Farmer. 

dollars  and  cents,  not  in  terms  that  can  be  computed. 
Here  the  cost  of  one  thing  depends  on  the  cost  of  another 
and  that  on  the  third,  and  so  on  till  the  circle  is  complete 
of  products  of  indefinite  cost.  What  is  the  cost  of  milk? 
That  depends  chiefly  on  the  cost  of  other  products,  raised 
usually  on  the  same  farm,  hay,  green  fodder  and  grain. 
What  is  the  cost  of  these!  That  depends  largely  on  the 
cost  of  manure  made  on  the  farm.  And  the  cost  of 
manure  has  much  to  do  with  the  cost  of  hay  and  grain. 
There  you  have  a  vicious  circle.  And  if  one  knew  what 
a  cord  of  manure  cost  when  made  on  the  farm,  who  can 
tell  how  much  of  the  manure  applied  went  to  the  first 
year's  hoed  crop,  how  much  to  each  of  the  three  or  four 
succeeding  years'  crops  of  oats,  or  grass  I 

Then,  when  several  crops  are  raised  in  the  same  year, 
who  can  tell  the  cost  of  man  and  team  for  each  in  plant- 
ing, caring  for,  and  harvesting?  It  is  all  mixed  up,  even 
where  there  are  no  cows  to  milk. 

Most  of  the  work  is  done  by  the  farmer  and  his  boys. 
What  is  a  fair  price  to  charge  for  them?  He  should 
charge  for  his  horses  what  they  cost  him,  all  things  in- 
cluded.    How  much  is  this? 

The  extreme  stupidity  sometimes  exhibited  even  by 
farmers  of  general  good  sense  in  regard  to  cost  is  almost 
beyond  belief.  Talking  with  the  owner  of  one  of  the  best 
farms  in  the  town  where  the  author  resides,  the  statement 
was'  made  that  his  corn  cost  him  but  thirty  cents  a  bushel. 
Greatly  interested  as  to  how  such  a  result  could  be 
figured  out,  the  inquiry  was  made:  ''How  much  did  you 
allow  for  manure  ? "  "  Nothing  at  all ;  that  was  made  on 
the  farm." 

Still  another  instance  that  fell  to  the  author's  notice: 
There  was  a  man  said  to  be  extensively  engaged  in  vege- 


Defenseless  Trade  Position  of  Agriculture.  95 

table  gardening  wlio  often  lectured  before  farmers'  clubs 
and  granges.  He  was  regarded  as  one  of  the  best 
informed  men  in  the  state  in  this  line.  He  got  to  talking 
about  corn  and  maintained  that  Xew  England  farmers 
could  afford  to  raise  it.  He  had  tested  the  matter  and 
proved  that  corn  could  be  raised  in  Massachusetts  for 
fifty  cents  a  bushel.  AVhat  gave  a  false  impression  here? 
In  the  experiment  he  used  his  gardening  land,  made 
exceedingly  rich  by  constant  application  of  manure.  No 
allowance  was  made  for  this  totally  unfair  condition. 
The  crop  was  charged  only  with  a  few  dollars'  worth  of 
fertilizers.  Of  course,  the  yield  was  phenomenal,  two  or 
three  times  the  usual.  This  gave  a  very  low  cost  per 
bushel. 

An  account  was  seen  in  an  agricultural  paper  of  a 
farmer  who  did  most  all  of  his  own  work,  claiming  his 
farm  paid  him  20%.  Several  items  of  cost  were  not 
entered ;  the  most  important  was  he  charged  nothing  for 
his  own  services. 

In  manufacture  cost  can  be  measured,  and  this  knowl- 
edge goes  far  to  hold  price  at  a  fair  level.  In  agriculture 
cost  cannot  be  ascertained;  price  is  determined  solely  by 
degree  of  competition.  How  vitally  this  affects  the  in- 
dustrial situation  has  been  shown  in  preceding  chapters. 
That  in  agriculture  competition  will  be  most  intense,  and 
in  consequence  that  price  is  likely  to  fall  far  below  cost, 
will  be  evident  from  a  discussion  of  the  next  proposition, 
which  is  that — 

Agkiculture  is  Not  Divided  into  Non-co:mpetixg  Groups 

If,  like  manufacture,  agriculture  was  divided  into  hun- 
dreds of  non-competing  groups,  and  farmers  generally 
confined  attention  to  single  specialties,  the  degree  of  com- 


96  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

j)etition  would  be  immensely  decreased.  Besides,  there 
would  be  a  multiplicity  of  associations  caring  for  the 
different  interests.  There  would  be  appeals  for  legisla- 
tion. There  would  be  tierce  attacks  on  the  protective 
system  as  most  injurious  to  the  farmer's  interest,  and  it 
would  soon  find  place  in  the  garret  of  forgotten  things. 
The  interest  of  a  man  carrying  on  several  lines  of  pro- 
duction is  fatallv  divided,  both  in  field  care  and  the  direc- 
tion  of  legislation. 

To  secure  full  attention  to  the  interests  of  a  product 
there  is  nothing  like  having  many  individuals  caring  for 
it  as  a  single  specialty.  Unfortunately,  there  is  little  to 
cause  a  division  into  separate  groups,  or  to  cause  farmers 
to  pursue  single  specialties.  Probably  there  are  less 
than  thirty  different  kinds  of  our  agricultural  products 
for  which  beast  or  man  affords  verv  extensive  markets. 
The  division  of  those  engaged  in  farming  into  this  num- 
ber of  groups  would  still  leave  the  number  of  persons  in 
each  too  large  for  successful  monopolization.  But  the 
effectual  bar  to  the  creating  of  monopolies  here  is  the 
great  similarity  of  soil  and  climate  throughout  the  United 
States.  So  great  is  this  similarity  of  conditions  that 
many  if  not  most  of  our  products  flourish  in  more  than 
half  our  wide  domain.  But  a  few  products,  like  cotton, 
rice,  sugar-cane,  and  sub-tropical  fruits,  are  confined  to 
certain  sections  of  the  countrv.  At  little  cost  the  farmer 
can  turn  from  the  production  of  one  crop  to  another.  He 
can  make  the  change  at  once,  though  fair  success  may 
require  a  year  or  two  of  experience.  Let  monopoly  here 
seize  on  a  line  of  products  and  send  price  to  a  high  level, 
the  very  next  year  the  number  of  growers  of  those  crops 
would  be  greatly  multiplied.  The  quantity  thrown  on  the 
market  would  not  only  break  the  wings  of  monopoly,  but 


Defenseless  Trade  Position  of  Agriculture.  97 

might  result  in  prices  as  far  below  as  it  had  risen  above 
a  fair  level. 

Something  more  remains  to  be  added  in  the  compari- 
son of  trade  positions.  In  combinations  for  fixing  price, 
other  things  being  eqnal,  the  fewer  the  persons  in  the 
movement  that  need  to  be  consulted  the  greater  the  suc- 
cess. The  number  of  proprietors  in  manufacture  is  one 
to  every  seven  or  eight  workmen ;  in  agriculture  the  num- 
ber of  laborers  is  fewer  than  the  number  of  farmers. 

Then  again  manufacturers  are  located  in  the  centres  of 
population  in  easy  reach  of  each  other  by  car,  train,  tel- 
ephone and  telegraph ;  the  farmers  are  scattered  all  over 
the  territory  of  the  nation,  widely  separated  from  each 
other,  with  no  direct  way  of  communicating,  utterly  un- 
known to  each  other. 

There  is  no  headquarters  of  production.  There  is  no 
way  of  concentrating  agricultural  supplies  and  forcing 
them  on  the  market  by  a  few  guarded  channels.  For 
most  agricultural  products  supplies  can  be  obtained  from 
a  thousand  sources  and  these  enter  the  market  at  as 
many  points. 

For  these  reasons  farmers'  products  are  simply 
thrown  on  the  market,  and  the  degree  of  supply  to  de- 
mand determines  the  price  at  all  points.  Nothing  is 
done — nothing  can  be  done  to  hold  price  at  a  fair  level. 
The  inevitable  result  of  millions  of  men  competing  under 
existing  conditions  is  to  cause  price  to  fall  far  below  a 
reasonable  level. 

To  cap  all,  as  if  the  trade  position  of  agriculture  was 
not  bad  enough,  the  national  government  increases  the 
degree  of  competition  by  giving  away  farms,  by  making 
great  tracts  of  land  available  by  irrigation  and  by  its 
foreign  policy  of  restricting  trade. 

7 


98  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 


FOUR    DECADES    OF    DECLINING   AGRI- 
CULTURAL PROSPERITY  UNDER 
HIGH    PROTECTION. 


CHAPTER  VIIL 

The  National  View. 

At  the  close  of  the  nineteenth  and  the  beginning  of 
the  twentieth  century  it  is  eminently  fitting  to  take  a 
backward  glance.  Xot  only  is  that  time  fitting,  but  un- 
usual facilities  are  given  for  such  a  review.  The  United 
States  Census,  1900,  includes  many  statistical  tables  con- 
cerning agriculture,  in  a  retrospective  view  covering  fifty 
years  in  decade  periods.  It  will  be  seen  that  these  data, 
and  those  from  manv  other  sources,  fullv  confirm  the 
words  of  the  Worthy  Master  of  the  National  Grrange, 
Aaron  Jones,  spoken  at  a  business  meeting  of  the  order 
at  Rochester,  N.  Y.,  in  November,  1903:  "Agriculture 
has  not  enjoyed  an  equal  degree  of  prosperity  with  man- 
ufacture and  other  industrial  and  commercial  enterprises 
in  the  United  States.  Farmers  are  losing  their  relative 
position  in  the  wealth  and  production  of  the  nation." 
And  he  adds,  "It  is  the  duty  of  this  order  and  every 
farmer  to  investigate  and  discover  the  causes  that  have 
contributed  to  this  condition,  and  aid  in  their  removal 
wherever  found." 

This  book  is  exactly  in  the  line  of  duty  indicated  by 
Worthv  Master  Jones. 


The  National  View.  99 

First  a  backward  glance  at  the  general  situation  of 
agriculture  for  the  last  fifty  years. 

In  1850  the  value  of  agricultural  property  exceeded 
the  wealth  owned  by  the  rest  of  the  nation.  In  ten 
years  the  value  of  the  former  had  doubled,  while  non- 
agricultural  wealth  had  much  more  than  doubled.  In 
forty  years  more,  1860-1900,  the  value  respectively  was 
about  twenty  and  one  half  billions,  and  nearly  seventy- 
four  billions  of  dollars.  This  for  the  nation.  The 
agricultural  gain  for  the  forty  years  was  chiefly 
caused  by  the  addition  of  millions  of  new  farms 
at  the  West  and  Southwest  where  land  was  for- 
merly almost  valueless.  In  the  North  Atlantic  divi- 
sion of  states,  where  new  land  has  not  been  a  factor, 
from  1850-60,  ten  years,  agricultural  property  increased 
in  value  $769,000,000;  in  the  next  forty  years  under  high 
duties  the  increase  was  but  $496,000,000.  And  in  the 
last  twenty  years,  from  1880-1900,  the  value  fell  off 
$246,000,000.  In  this  same  division  of  states,  the  total 
value  of  all  property  rose  from  $3,131,000,000  in  1850 
to  $38,301,000,000  in  1904.  Leaving  out  the  Wall  Street 
state,  and  the  round  figures  are  $2,050,000,000  in  1850, 
and  $23,532,000,000  in  1904.    About  a  ten-fold  increase. 

We  claim  that  this  section  of  the  Union  gives  a  fairer 
criterion  of  the  agricultural  situation  than  where  many 
new  states,  each  with  a  vast  acreage  of  land,  have  in- 
creased by  billions  of  dollars  the  value  of  agricultural 
property. 

Now  it  is  not  at  all  strange,  with  the  rapid  growth  of 
the  manufacturing  centres,  and  the  vast  extension  of  the 
railroad  system,  that  the  wealth  of  the  non-agricultural 
portion  should  multiply  faster  than  that  of  the  agricul- 
tural community.    What  is  most  surprising   is  the  fact 


100  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

that,  as  the  wealth  of  the  nation  rapidly  increased,  the 
percentage  of  gain  to  the  farmer  (where  conditions  were 
normal)  decreased,  and  in  the  last  twenty  years,  1880- 
1900,  suffered  an  actual  loss  of  nearly  8  per  cent. 

We  now  enter  on  a  closer  examination.  The  first  evi- 
dence of  waning  prosperity  we  present  is  two  tables : 
one  showing  the  total  value  of  farm  land,  including 
buildings,  at  different  periods,  with  percentage  of  gain; 
another  giving  the  total  value  of  all  farm  property,  land, 
buildings,  machinery  and  live  stock,  and  the  percentage 
of  gain. 

Value  of  all  Farm 


Value  of  U.S.  Farms, 
including  Buildings. 

Percentage 
of  Gain. 

Property  in  U.S., 
Land,  Buildings, 
Machinery     and 
Live  Stock. 

Percent- 
age of 
Gain. 

(In  round  numbers.) 

1850 

$3,271,000,000 

$3,967,000,000 

1860 

6.645,000,000 

103.1 

7,980,000,000 

101.2 

1870 

9.262,000,000 

39.4 

11,125,000,000 

39.4 

1880 

10,197,000,000 

10.9 

12,180.000,000 

9.5 

1890 

13,279.000,000 

30.2 

16,082,000,000 

32.0 

1900 

16,674,000,000 

25.6 

20,514,000,000 

26.2 

These  tables  show  at  a  glance  that  there  is  no  material 
difference  in  the  percentage  of  gain  of  the  two  columns 
of  values.  Whether  the  value  of  real  estate  held  by  farm- 
ers is  considered  alone  or  in  conjunction  with  the  per- 
sonal property,  the  percentage  of  gain  in  value  of  the 
first  given  decade  is  four  times  greater  than  the  average 
of  the  four  following  decades.  It  is  not  evident  from 
the  figures  that  farm  property  shared  to  an  equal  extent, 
if  at  all,  in  the  great  inflation  of  values  common  to  most 
I^roperty  during  the  war  period,  1860-70.  During  that 
decade  there  was  practically  no  increase  in  the  number 
of  acres  of  land  in  farms.     The  value  of  new  buildings. 


The  National  VinvJ   '  '  '*'- '  ''  a'Ol 

and  the  increased  value  of  the  improved  acres  (about  16 
per  cent,  larger)  would  go  in  part  at  least  to  make  up 
the  39  per  cent,  increase  in  value.  Had  there  been  a 
great  inflation  of  values  in  the  war  period,  the  small  per- 
centage of  gain  of  the  three  last  decades  as  compared 
with  that  of  1850-60  would  be  imputed  to  the  gradual 
fall  to  a  normal  basis. 

Now  unless  some  explanation  can  be  fbund  for  the 
apparently  far  greater  prosperity  enjoyed  before  the  war 
than  since,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  golden  age  of 
agriculture  was  from  1850-60  under  low  revenue  duties. 
During  this  decade  there  must  have  been  an  average 
annual  gain  in  value  of  more  than  10  per  cent,  to  amount 
to  the  103  per  cent,  in  ten  years.  What  per  cent,  on  the 
average  would  give  the  gain  in  decades  ending  in  1880, 
1890  and  1900  ?    A  trifle  over  3  per  cent. 

To  show  that  the  greater  prosperity  1850-60  was  real, 
and  not  all  due  to  the  gain  of  new  land  at  the  West  and 
Southwest,  we  present  other  tables. 

p  .      Average  value  per  Percent- 

The  Number  of  Acres           tlT^ai  ^^^®  °^  ^^^°^  ^^^  °^ 

of  Land  in  Farms.               rt:^  Land,   including  Gam  or 

^^^^-  Buildings.  Loss. 
(In  round  numbers.) 

1850  293.500,000  $11.14 

1860  407.200,000  38.7  16.32  46.5 

1870  407,700.000  0.1  18.26  12.0 

1880  536,000,000  31.5  19.02  4.0 

1890  623,200,000  16.3  21.31  12.0 

1900  838,590,000  35.0  19.88  —7.0 

Here  it  is  seen  that  the  percentage  of  gain  in  number 
of  acres  of  land  was  not  much  greater  from  1850-60  than 
from  1870-80,  or  1890-1900.  And  yet  the  increase  in 
value  of  farms  was  103  per  cent,  in  the  first  of  these 


102  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

decades,  and  less  than  26  per  cent,  on  the  average  in  the 
last  three,  the  ratio  being  as  4  to  1. 

Glancing  now  at  the  average  value  per  acre  of  farm 
lands  with  buildings,  it  is  seen  that  from  1850-60  the  per- 
centage of  gain  was  over  46  per  cent.,  while  from  1890- 
1900  there  was  not  only  no  gain  but  a  loss  of  7  per  cent. 

• 

The  Story  Told  by  Mortgaged  Property. 

In  the  political  campaign  of  1900  Eepublican  papers 
and  orators  affirmed  that  so  prosperous  had  been  the 
three  last  years  under  President  McKinley  that  the  farm- 
ers had  paid  off  their  mortgages.  The  data  concerning 
indebtedness  had  been  collected  the  previous  year,  1899, 
but  we  think  were  not  published  till  1902  or  1903. 

There  had  been  abundant  crops*  at  the  West  and  South 
in  the  three  years  mentioned,  1897-99.  But  in  spite  of  a 
large  foreign  demand,  prices  were  low.  Still  the  large 
quantities  when  disposed  of  returned  vast  sums  of 
money,  so  that  it  was  thought  likely  that  there  might  be 
considerable  truth  in  the  statements  of  partisan  journals 
and  speakers.  If  so,  the  number  of  farmers  previously 
bearing  burdens  must  have  been  great  indeed.  Here  is 
a  partial  list  of  the  columns  of  figures  showing  how 
many  farmers  owned  their  farms,  and  how  many  of  the 
owned  farms  were  mortgaged.  The  part  given  comprises 
the  returns  for  the  nation,  for  the  grand  divisions,  and 
for  fourteen  of  the  more  prosperous  states. 

The  last  column  shows  what  per  cent,  of  the  owned 
farms  were  mortgaged,  does  not  include  farms  carried 
on  bv  ^'Farmers'  Families"  who  are  tenants. 


The  National  View. 


103 


"  Farmers'  Families' 
having  Homes.' ' 

Continental  United  States, 
North  Atlantic  Division, 
South  Atlantic  Division, 
North  Central  Division, 
South  Central  Division, 
Western  Division, 

Massachusetts, 

New  York, 

Pennsylvania, 

Ohio,  ^ 

Indiana, 

Illinois, 

Michigan, 

Wisconsin, 

Minnesota, 

Iowa, 

Missouri, 

Nebraska, 

Kansas, 

California, 


1900— Owned  Per  Cent. 

T-.  -n/r    i.        J     Mortgaged, 

Free.  Mortgaged.        „hnn+ 


2,422,678 

315,070 

416,425 

887,774 

654,546 

148,863 

19,058 

89,934 

107.661 

138,568 

97,290 

92,768 

85,608 

77,622 

67,015 

67,673 

109,729 

39,024 

61,865 

33,847 


1,094,573 
195,921 
83,858 
634,559 
138,955 
41,280 
11,976 
77,429 
51,438 
58,669 
55,889 
60,089 
79,836 
65,645 
54,377 
76,417 
80,692 
32,430 
44,370 
16,072 


31.00 
38.00 
17.00 
41.00 
17.00 
22.00 
37.00 
46.00 
32.33 
29.00 
36.48 
39.31 
48.25 
45.82 
44.79 
53.03 
42.37 
45.38 
41.76 
32.19 


iThe  number  of   ''Farmers'  Families"  and  the  number  of  farms  agree 
within  less  then  one  per  cent. 

But  the  number  of  mortgages,  numerous  as 
thev  are,  is  far  from  indicating  the  real  condi- 
tion  of  the  agricultural  masses.  More  than  one- 
third  of  the  farmers  were  too  poor  in  1900  to 
obtain  possession  of  a  farm  by  giving  a  mort- 
gage. A  mortgage  usually  implies  that  the  purchaser 
has  the  means  of  paying  a  considerable  part  of  the  price. 
A  part  paid  down  gives  additional  assurance  to  the  seller 
that  the  investment  is  a  safe  one.  Men  who  have  no 
capital  can  rarely  find  owners  of  farms  willing  to  risk 
a  trade  where  the  mortgage  given  represents  the  total 
price.     Uncle   Sam  has  given  away  many  millions   of 


104 


The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 


acres  of  land  to  men  without  means,  and  in  a  few  years 
these  may  have  acquired  sufficient  value  to  put  on  small 
mortgages  for  implements,  teams,  etc.  Other  than  this 
way,  if  a  man  without  capital  wants  a  farm  he  generally 
has  to  hire  either  by  agreeing  to  give  a  certain  share  of 
the  crops  or  pay  so  much  cash  when  the  crops  have  been 
converted  into  money.  We  think  it  fair,  then,  to  define  a 
tenant  as  one  who  is  too  poor  to  obtain  possession  of  a 
farm  by  giving  a  mortgage. 

The  census  record  for  1900  shows  the  following  condi- 
tion— ''Per  Cent,  of  Farm  Families  Having  Homes;" — 
in  other  words : 


Per  Cent,  of  Farms 
Owned  or  Hired. 

Continental  United  States, 
North  Atlantic  Division. 
South  Atlantic  Division, 
North  Central  Division, 
South  Central  Division, 
Western  Division, 


Farms  Owned.' 

Free.          Mortgaged. 

Hired. 

44.4                20 

35.6 

48.2                30 

21.8 

45.9                  9.3 

44.8 

42.2                30.1 

27.7 

42.3                  8.9 

48.8 

63.4                17.6 

19.0 

An  examination  of  this  table  shows  that  more  farms 
were  mortgaged  than  hired  in  the  North  Atlantic  and 
North  Central  Divisions ;  while  in  the  South  Atlantic  and 
South  Central  Divisions  few  farms  were  mortgaged,  but 
very  many  hired. 

Does  the  above  table  indicate  a  prosperous  condition? 
For  the  nation  but  a  little  over  44%  of  the  farms  tilled 
by  the  owners  were  free  of  incumbrance;  the  owners  of 
207c  more  were  mortgaged;  while  over  35%  were  carried 
on  by  tenants.  In  that  stronghold  of  agriculture,  the 
North  Central  Division,  58%  of  all  the  farms  were  either 
mortgaged  or  let  to  tenants. 

Another  important  link  in  the  chain  of  evidence  of  the 


The  Kational  View.  105 

decline  of  agricultural  prosperity  is  the  slow  gain  in 
total  annual  value  of  agricultural  products.  As  shown 
by  one  of  the  preceding  tables  the  capital  invested  in 
the  industrv  has  increased  four-fold  since  1850;  the  num- 
ber  of  farmers  as  indicated  by  the  number  of  farms  has 
multiplied  three-fold;  and  owing  to  the  substitution  of 
the  quick-moving  horse  for  the  slow-going  ox  and  great 
improvement  in  farm  machinery,  the  labor  of  man  is  far 
more  productive  than  fifty  years  ago.  For  these  reasons 
the  quant  it  u  produced  in  1900  must  have  been  three  or 
four  times  as  much  as  in  the  former  time.  Did  the  value 
received  by  the  farmer  show  a  corresi^onding  increase! 
For  answer  we  turn  to  Mr.  S.  X.  D.  North,  one  of  the 
prominent  supervisors  of  the  census  of  1900.  In  an  arti- 
cle published  in  the  American  Eeview  of  Ee^dews  Sep- 
tember, 1902,  pages  319  to  324,  he  says,  ''The  population 
has  in  the  meantime  increased  two  and  one  quarter  fold 
(since  1850)  and  the  value  of  agricultural  products  some- 
thing less  than  two-fold." 

The  slow  increase  in  total  value  of  agricultural  lorod- 
ucts  will  be  far  more  apparent  by  a  comparison  with  the 
increased  value  of  manufactured  products.  The  value  of 
manufactured  products  increased  twelve-fold.  The  in- 
crease in  number  of  average  wage-earners  was  about 
four  and  one-half  fold.  The  increase  in  capital  is  given 
as  nearly  seventeen-fold,  but  was  actually  far  less.  In 
1890,  for  the  first  time,  ''Live  capital,  i.e.,  cash  on  hand, 
bills  receivable,  unsettled  ledger  accounts,  raw  materials, 
stock  in  process  of  manufacture,  finished  products  on 
hand,  and  other  sundries,  was  for  the  first  time  included 
as  a  separate  and  distinct  item  of  capital."  These  items 
undoubtedly  added  billions  of  dollars  to  capital.  To  indi- 
cate the  enormous  effect  we  give  the  percentage  of  gain 


106  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

in  capital  before  and  after:  from  1870-80,  31.7%;  from 
1890-1900,  50.7%.  In  1880  returns  of  value  of  capital  were 
given  by  former  methods,  in  1890  came  the  change  indi- 
cated above,  and  the  apparent  gain  was  133.8%.  In  1850 
the  total  annual  value  of  agricultural  products  must  have 
been  more  than  twice  that  of  manufacture.  In  1900  the 
total  annual  value  of  the  latter  was  nearly  three  times 
that  of  the  former.  Under  somewhat  similar  conditions 
where  manufacture  shows  a  twelve-fold  increase,  agricul- 
ture in  the  fifty  years,  forty  of  these  under  the  highest 
kind  of  protection,  shows  less  than  two-fold.  Is  it  strange 
that  the  poverty  of  returns  in  agriculture  caused  such  a 
desertion  of  farms  that  where  in  1880  the  44.3%  of  those 
engaged  in  farming  fell  to  35.7  in  1900! 

Summary  of  the  chief  links  of  the  chain  proving  de- 
cline in  agricultural  prosperity : 

(1)  In  the  nation,  a  rapid  decline  in  the  percentage 
of  gain  in  value  of  agricultural  property  in  the  last  forty 
years. 

(2)  A  great  decline  in  the  percentage  of  gain  in  value 
of  the  average  acre  of  land  with  buildings,  with  a  posi- 
tive decline  of  7%  in  such  value  in  the  last  decade. 

(3)  The  great  percentage  of  mortgaged  and  hired 
farms  in  1900. 

(4)  The  small  increase  in  the  total  annual  value  of 
agricultural  products  during  the  last  fifty  years. 

(5)  The  large  decline  in  the  percentage  of  those  who 
follow  agricultural  pursuits. 

What  a  pity  that  there  are  no  data  as  to  the  amount 
of  wealth  in  possession  of  manufacturers  and  the  holders 
of  bonds  and  stocks  of  manufacturing  companies,  by 
decade  periods ! 


Independent  Farmer  Becoming  Tenant.  107 


CHAPTER  IX. 

The  Independent  Fakmer  Sinking  to  the  Position 

OF  Mere  Tenant. 

''There  was  one  remark  made  by  Ex-governor  Bout- 
well  at  the  Old  Home  celebration  at  Lunenbnrg  last  week 
which  particularly  arrested  the  attention  of  his  listeners. 
'Farmers  tell  me,'  he  said,  'that  it  is  hard  to  make  both 
ends  meet,  and  I  am  glad  of  it'.  The  astonished  auditor 
then  had  matters  explained  as  follows : — 

"  'We  look  about  and  see  such  aggregations  of  indi- 
vidual wealth  as  were  never  dreamed  of  when  I  was  a 
lad,  or  in  middle  life.  This  vast  capital  is  seeking  safe 
investment,  and  if  it  can  find  it  at  2%,  and  safe,  it  is 
satisfied.  If  farming  were  profitable  these  people  would 
certainly  buy  up  all  the  land  and  hire  its  cultivation  for 
profit,  and  the  present  self-respecting  and  respected 
farmer  would  become  practically  a  serf  on  the  soil.  So  I 
am  glad  of  the  struggle,  for  it  keeps  our  sturdiest  people 
still  self-supporting,  industrious,  self-reliant;  still  the 
sound  common  sense  of  the  nation,  its  backbone  in  every 
great  stress.  So  it  is  fortunate  the  condition  is  what  we 
hear,  and  what  I  have  explained.'  " 

"Whether  the  provincial  life  is  being  buttressed  in  its 
independent  position  and  hardy  virtues  by  a  meagre  and 
laborious  existence,  or  whether  it  is  not  thereby  weak- 
ened, may  be  questioned.  In  the  Roman  republic  the  im- 
poverishment of  agriculture  preceded  and  led  up  to  its 
enslavement;  and  it  is  decidedly  open  to  doubt  whether 
existing  conditions  on  our  farms,  as  described,  offer  as 
great  resistance   to   the   centralizing  tendencies   of  the 


108  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

time  as  would  more  prosperous  conditions.  If  the  latter 
prevailed  there  would  be  smaller  aggregations  of  individ- 
ual ^vealth  with  which  to  effect  a  practical  serfdom  of  the 
soil." 

The  above  is  copied  from  an  article  in  the  Massachu- 
setts Springfield  Weekly  Eepublican  of  AugTist  8,  1902. 

We  think  the  doubts  expressed  by  the  journal  exceed- 
ingly well  taken.  Which  is  most  likely  to  be  the  sturdy, 
independent  farmer  admired  by  Mr.  Boutwell — the  one 
who  has  a  master  in  the  form  of  a  mortgage  so  heavy 
that  to  keep  the  interest  paid  requires  unceasing,  exhaus- 
tive effort,  where  care  presses  incessantly  like  a  dead 
weight  on  the  breast;  or  the  man  whose  well-directed 
efforts  on  a  fertile  farm  have  secured  a  handsome  bank 
account  to  his  credit?  AVhich  of  these  two  will  dare  look 
a  haughty  opponent  square  in  the  face  and  express  op- 
posing views — the  one  whose  weak  financial  condition 
causes  a  constant  seeking  of  favors  from  those  about 
him,  or  the  other  on  whom  no  man  has  any  hold,  who 
feels  perfectly  able  to  care  for  himself? 

Did  Mr.  Boutwell  take  into  consideration  the  fact  that 
because  of  poor  returns,  the  old  original  Yankee  stock 
has  largely  been  driven  from  the  farms,  and  into  their 
places  have  come  men  from  Canada,  Sweden,  Germany? 
Will  this  change  to  men  of  less  intelligence,  who  have 
not  inherited  love  for  our  country  and  its  free  institu- 
tions, lessen  the  danger  of  the  farmer's  becoming  a  serf 
on  the  soil?" 

Whoever  heard  before  that  the  way  to  keep  ''our 
sturdiest  people  still  self-supporting"  was  by  making  it 
' '  hard  to  make  the  two  ends  meet  ? " 

The  farmers  of  1776  brooked  no  tyrants,  but  in  our  day 
the  blood  of  agricultural  prosperity  has  been  sucked  to 
such  an  extent  by  the  vampires  of  monopoly  that  no  life 


Independent  Farmer  Becoming  Tenant.  109 

seems  to  be  left  in  the  agricultural  community.  They 
endure  wrongs  without  a  murmur,  -compared  to  which 
those  of  1776  were  mere  shadows. 

Mr.  W.  J.  Ghent  does  not  see  with  Mr.  Boutwell's 
eyes.  In  his  book,  ''Our  Benevolent  Feudalism,"  occur 
these  sentences:  "The  subject  of  the  changing  status  of 
the  farmer — a  change  which  involves  his  ultimate  reduc- 
tion to  the  sixteenth  century  level— is  too  large  to  receive 
adecjuate  treatment  in  these  pages." 

"In  most  ages  the  working  farmer  has  been  the  dupe 
and  prey  of  the  rest  of  mankind.  Now  by  force  and  now 
by  cajolery,  as  social  customs  and  political  institutions 
change,  he  has  been  made  to  produce  the  food  by  which 
the  race  lives,  and  the  share  of  his  product  which  he  has 
been  permitted  to  keep  for  himself  has  always  been  piti- 
fullv  small.  Whether  Roman  slave,  Frankish  serf  or 
English  villain;  whether  the  so-called  'independent' 
farmer  of  a  free  democracy  or  the  ryot  of  a  Hindu 
prince,  the  general  rule  holds  good." 

"Xeither  do  small  holdings  in  agriculture  mean  eco- 
nomic independence.  As  the  late  census  reveals,  they 
mean  tenantry.  The  proportion  of  farms  operated  by 
owners  is  decreasing;  tenantry  is  becoming  more  and 
more  common,  and  so  is  salaried  management  of  great 
estates.  Of  the  5,739,657  farms  of  the  nation,  tenants 
now  operate  2,026,286.  Owners  operated  74.5%  of  all 
farms  in  1880;  76.6%  in  1890;  64.7%  in  1900.  The  ten- 
dency is  general,  and  applies  to  all  sections." 

' '  This  remarkable  growth  of  tenantry  would  be  consid- 
ered in  any  other  than  our  own  complacent  days  as  an 
alarming,  even  an  appalling  fact." 

How  far  the  process  of  reducing  the  farmer  to  the 
position  of  mere  tenant  has  gone  in  twenty  years  we  show 
by  computations  from  census  figures.     We  present  the 


110  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

figures  for  the  nation ;  then  for  the  grand  divisions ;  last- 
ly give  the  separate  record  for  more  than  a  third  of  all 
the  states.  In  the  latter  case,  we  start  from  the  Atlantic 
Ocean,  and  pass  into  the  very  heart  of  the  nation,  nam- 
ing the  great  states  where  agriculture  is  in  the  most 
flourishing  condition;  then,  making  a  long  skip  over  the 
Eocky  Mountains,  show  how  things  are  in  the  oldest  set- 
tled of  the  Pacific  States.  We  thus  bring  to  view  nearly 
all  but  some  of  the  newer  states  and  the  Southern  States. 

The  Number  of  Farms  Worked  by  Owners  and  Tenants. 


Owners.          Percentage 

;           Tenants. 

of  In- 

Percent- 

1900 

1880      crease  or 

1900 

1880      a 

tare  of 

Continental  United 

Decrease. 

Increase. 

States,         3,712,408 

2,984,306 

24.4  2,024,964  1,024,601 

97.6 

North  Atlantic 

Division, 

536.724 

584,847 

8.21 

140,782 

111,292 

26.5 

South  Atlantic 

Division, 

536,627 

411.673 

30.3 

425,598 

232,756 

82.8 

North  Central 

Di\dsion,     1.583,841 

1,350,225 

17.3 

612,726 

3:47,743 

76.2 

South  Central 

Division, 

852,620 

565.556 

50.7 

805.546 

321,092 

150.9 

Western  Div., 

202,596 

72,005 

181.4 

40,312 

11,718 

244.0 

States : 

Massachusetts, 

34,112 

35,266 

3.31 

3,603 

3,140 

14.7 

New  York, 

172.517 

201,186 

14.21 

54.203 

39,872 

35.1 

Pennsvlvania, 

165,982 

168,220 

1.31 

58,266 

45,322 

28.5 

Ohio, ' 

200.788 

199,562 

.6 

75,931 

47,627 

59.4 

Indiana, 

158,449 

147,963 

7.1 

63.448 

46.050 

37.8 

Illinois, 

160,453 

175,497 

8.51 

103,698 

80,244 

29.2 

Michigan, 

171.048 

138,597 

23.4 

32,213 

15,411 

109.2 

Wisconsin, 

146,799 

122,163 

20.2 

22,996 

12,159 

89.1 

Minnesota, 

127,904 

83,933 

52.4 

26,755 

8,453 

216.5 

Iowa, 

148.886 

141,177 

5.5 

79,736 

44,174 

80.5 

IMissouri, 

197.989 

156,703 

26.0 

86.897 

58,872 

47.6 

Nebraska, 

76,715 

51,963 

47.6 

44,810 

11.424  292.24 

Kansas, 

112.172 

115,910 

3  21 

60,926 

22,651 168.98 

California, 

55,782 

28,810 

93.6 

16,760 

7.124  135.26 

^  Loss. 


Independent  Farmer  Becoming  Tenant.  Ill 

Here  it  is  seen  that  for  the  nation,  tenant  farming  has 
increased  in  twenty  years  nearly  100%,  outstripping  the 
gain  in  ownership  four-fold.  In  1880  about  one  farmer 
in  four  was  a  tenant;  in  1900  more  than  one  farnier  in 
three.  To  this  statement  should  be  added  what  was 
noted  in  the  sixth  chapter,  that  31%  of  those  who  owned 
the  farms  they  carried  on  had  a  mortgage  upon  them; 
in  other  words,  nearly  one-third  of  the  farms  owned  were 
mortgaged.  At  the  rate  tenant  farming  has  increased  (a 
percentage  of  gain  of  97.6%  in  twenty  years)  in  much 
less  than  forty  years  the  independent  farmer  will  be  ex- 
tinct— landlordism  will  be  universal. 

From  this  general  statement  concerning  the  nation  we 
pass  to  observe  the  condition  in  the  sections  or  states. 
Eeversing  the  order  in  which  the  grand  divisions  are 
usually  given,  we  first  glance  at  the  status  of  the  Western 
Division.  This  group  consists  of  Montana,  Wyoming, 
Colorado,  New  Mexico,  Arizona,  Utah,  Nevada,  Idaho, 
Washington,  Oregon  and  California.  But  little  of  this 
vast  extent  of  territory  was  settled  in  1880 — the  greater 
part  of  California  was  not.  Even  in  1900  less  than  4% 
of  the  total  land  surface  of  this  division  was  improved. 
Its  herds  and  flocks,  from  which  was  obtained  a  very 
large  part  of  the  value  of  its  products,  mainly  drew  sus- 
tenance from  its  boundless  grazing  lands.  Its  great 
farms  or  ranches  are  not  yet  cut  to  civilization  size ;  and 
their  comparatively  high  value  indicates  farmers  with 
means  much  above  the  average  of  the  class.  With  all 
conditions  relating  to  the  industry  so  different  from 
those  usually  existing  in  agricultural  communities,  it 
could  not  be  expected  that  data  of  value  to  the  subject 
in  hand  could  be  obtained  from  this  section  of  the  nation. 


112  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

The  South  Atlantic  and  South  Central  Divisions. 

These  two  divisions  include  the  former  slave-holding 
states  (save  Missouri),  the  District  of  Columbia,  Dela- 
ware, and  Oklahoma.  Here  again  were  abnormal  condi- 
tions that  so  affected  the  situation  as  to  prevent  the 
drawing  of  fair  conclusions.  The  general  impoverish- 
ment of  the  planters  by  the  war  and  the  freeing  of  the 
slaves  caused  a  large  part  of  the  land  to  be  thrown  on 
the  market  even  as  late  as  from  1880-1900.  At  the  same 
time  there  were  hundreds  of  thousands  of  former  slaves, 
or  the  children  of  such  slaves,  who  desired  to  obtain 
farms,  but  few  of  them  had  means  to  purchase.  So  here 
it  is  not  strange  that  the  percentage  of  gain  in  rented 
farms  was  nearly  three  times  greater  than  increase  in 
ownership.  Even  if  under  fair  conditions  there  had  been 
a  great  degree  of  prosperity,  the  natural  indolence  of  the 
negroes,  when  they  are  their  own  bosses,  would  prevent 
the  gradual  acquiring  of  land  ]30ssessions  on  the  part  of 
the  greater  number. 

The  North  Central  Division. 

This  includes  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Michigan,  Wis- 
consin, Minnesota,  Iowa,  Missouri,  North  and  South  Da- 
kota, Nebraska  and  Kansas — a  magnificent  array  of 
agricultural  states  that  comprises  within  its  limits  more 
than  half  the  value  of  all  farm  property  in  the  United 
States.  If  there  was  prosperity  anywhere  in  the  agri- 
cultural community,  it  should  be  found  here.  What  is 
the  record  for  this  division!  Seventeen  per  cent,  increase 
in  ownership  from  1880-1900  and  76%  gain  in  the  num- 
ber of  rented  farms.  Of  those  who  owned  farms  almost 
42%  were  mortgaged. 


I 


Independent  Farmer  Becoming  Tenant.  113 

Of  the  states  of  this  division  Nebraska  is  the  most 
recently  settled,  and  it  is  seen  that  to  every  man  who 
came  into  possession  of  a  farm  by  purchase,  more  than 
six  rented  the  farms  they  carried  on.  In  1900,  45%  of 
all  farms  owned  by  those  who  tilled  them  were  mort- 
gaged. 

The  historical  State  of  Kansas  shows  a  decrease  in 
ownership  of  farms  of  over  3%,  and  an  increase  in  the 
number  of  farms  rented  of  169%.  About  42%  of  the 
farms  owned  by  the  tillers  thereof  were  mortgaged. 

The  story  of  Iowa  is  nearly  as  bad:  less  than  6% 
ownership  gain,  and  80%  gain  in  rentals;  while  53%  of 
the  owners  who  tilled  their  farms  carried  mortgages. 

Michigan,  Wisconsin  and  Minnesota  show  a  far  larger 
increase  in  ownership  than  Iowa,  and  the  percentage  of 
mortgaged  is  somewhat  less;  but  there  is  a  far  greater 
gain  in  rentals,  especially  in  Minnesota.  Here  a  gain  in 
ownership  of  over  52%  is  accompanied  by  a  gain  in  ten- 
ants of  216%. 

Illinois  shows  a  comparatively  small  gain  in  rented 
farms,  but  a  positive  loss  in  ownership  of  over  8%. 

The  last  of  the  North  Central  group  to  which  we  call 
attention  is  Ohio.  No  state  in  the  Union  is  better  cir- 
cumstanced for  securing  rich  agricultural  returns.  It  is 
centrally  located,  with  all  its  territory  easily  accessible 
by  water  or  railroads.  Its  soil  is  most  fertile.  The  land 
is  cut  into  small  farms,  indicating  intensive  farming.  In 
population  only  three  states  exceed  it,  which  gives  its 
farmers  a  market  for  the  most  profitable  crops  at  their 
very  doors.  A  very  large  portion  of  its  people  are  en- 
gaged in  manufacture.  In  1900  the  value  of  such  prod- 
ucts was  so  great  as  to  give  Ohio  the  fifth  place  in  this 
industry.    If  the  theory  is  sound  that  protection  creates 

8 


114  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

manufacturing  centres,  and  that  these  furnish  extremely 
lucrative  markets  to  the  surrounding  farmers,  the  farm- 
ers of  this  State  should  be  rolling  in  wealth.  Here  is 
opportunity  for  testing  the  theory.  The  reign  of  pro- 
tection began  in  1860.  The  farmers  have  been  under  its 
benign  influence  for  four  decades.  How  have  they  fared! 
Here  is  one  of  the  tables  furnished  by  the  census  report 
of  1900  that  tells  the  story : 

Ohio  Farms. 

The  total  value  of  farm  land  with  buildings  (with  percentage  of  gain  and 
loss)  in  round  numbers. 

Per  Cent. 

1850  $358,758,000 

1860  678,133,000  -f89 

1870  1,054,465,000  -f55.5 

1880  1,127,497,000            +6.9 

1890  1,050,032,000            —6.9 

1900  1,036,615,000            —1.3 

Before  the  days  of  Republican  protection  a  gain  in  the 
value  of  land  and  buildings  of  over  $319,000,000,  percent- 
age gain  89%  in  a  single  decade;  under  the  highest  pro- 
tection ever  known  in  the  United  States  a  loss  in  two 
decades  of  $90,000,000,  or  8%. 

Then  in  regard  to  the  value  of  buildings  on  the  Ohio 
farms.  Ohio  was  admitted  to  the  Union  in  1802.  It  then 
had  a  population  of  45,365.  In  those  early  days  little 
more  could  have  been  expected  in  the  way  of  buildings 
on  farms  but  rough  sheds  for  man  and  beast.  As  time 
went  on  these  naturally  would  give  way  for  something 
larger  and  better.  By  the  time  of  the  great  Civil  War 
we  should  look  to  see  the  families  provided  generally 
with  comfortable  small  framed  houses,  warm  sheds  for 
the  stock,  and  much  of  the  hav,  formerlv  stacked,  imder 
a  roof.     The  forty  years  since  added,  bringing  up  to 


Independent  Farmer  Becoming  Tenant.  115 

1900,  should  have  seen  large  front  additions  made  to  the 
dwellings,  and  barns  of  generous  proportions  everywhere. 
But  what  sum  does  the  census  of  1900  state  as  the  value 
of  the  buildings  on  the  average  Ohio  farm?  Just  seven 
hundred  and  ninety-three  dollars  !  Less  than  $800  worth 
of  buildings  after  nearly  one  hundred  years.  And  much 
the  same  pitiable  story  of  agricultural  poverty  is  told  by 
the  census  for  a  large  part  of  the  United  States.  When 
we  compare  the  cost  of  buildings  erected  by  farmers 
with  the  outlay  made  in  the  small  and  great  manufac- 
turing centres,  the  comparison  is  most  startling. 

The  percentage  of  gain  in  ownership  of  Ohio  farms 
from  1880-1900  was  hardly  anything,  less  than  one  per 
cent.,  while  the  gain  in  rented  farms  was  nearly  60%. 

NoT^'  it  will  be  claimed  by  some  who  have  reasons  of 
their  own  for  keeping  the  agricultural  community  in 
ignorance  of  the  true  condition,  that  this  letting  to  ten- 
ants indicates  a  high  degree  of  prosperity  and  not  the 
reverse.  Cases  have  been  cited  to  the  writer  of  farmers 
in  some  sections  of  the  country  who  were  getting  into 
years,  renting  their  farms  and  taking  up  their  abode  in 
the  iriore  populous  centres,  supporting  themselves  there 
by  the  gains  made  in  many  years  of  toil  and  the  sums 
obtained  by  the  rental  of  the  farms.  It  is  evident  that 
such  farms  carry  a  double  burden,  which  would  imply 
large  returns.  But  if  the  profits  were  large  why  did  the 
percentage  of  these  renters  rapidly  increase?  Why,  if 
they  received  only  fair  profits,  did  they  not  gradually 
obtain  the  means  for  the  purchase  of  a  farm!  If  gener- 
ally they  did  gain  the  necessary  amount,  or  even  enough 
to  gain  possession  of  a  farm  by  giving  a  mortgage,  why 
did  they  not  exchange  the  status  of  a  renter  for  that  of 
owner!    In  the  twenty  years  from  1880-1900,  there  was 


116  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

plenty  of  time  to  make  such  a  change  if  the  pursuit  of 
farming  had  proved  profitable.  The  rapid  increase  of 
renters  over  gain  in  ownership  seems  to  be  conclusive 
evidence  that  little  more  than  a  living  was  realized  by 
the  greater  part  of  those  renting  farms. 

Driven  from  this  position  there  are  those  who  will  say : 
*'The  evidence  presented  of  declining  agricultural  pros- 
perity is  ancient  history.  Since  the  census  was  taken  in 
1899  a  new  heaven  and  earth  have  appeared  in  the  agri- 
cultural world.  Not  only  have  the  western  farmers  paid 
off  their  mortgages,  but  handsome  banking  accounts  now 
stand  to  their  credit. ' '  It  was  shown  in  the  eighth  chap- 
ter that  much  the  same  talk  was  current  with  Eepublican 
speakers  and  papers  in  the  campaign  of  1900.  How  far 
off  they  were  from  the  truth  has  been  seen.  The  reports 
of  increased  x^i'osperity  since  1899  among  the  western 
farmers  comes  not  onlv  from  biased  but  also  from  un- 
biased  sources,  and  there  seems  to  be  little  doubt  of  the 
fact.  But  those  who  believe  that  the  burdens  of  many 
years  can  be  dropped  by  a  few  prosperous  seasons  know 
little  of  the  hardships  of  the  farmer's  life.  The  average 
farmer  usually,  even  with  close  economy,  barely  makes 
the  two  ends  meet.  If,  then,  there  comes  a  time  when  for 
several  years  the  dollars  are  more  plenty,  there  are  many 
ways  of  investing  the  surplus  besides  paying  oif  a  mort- 
gage. There  are  repairs  to  make,  new  machines  or  wag- 
ons or  animals  to  purchase,  or  perhaps  a  small  addition 
need  be  made  to  house  or  barn.  So  that  unless  there  is 
a  persistence  for  many  years  of  good  times  the  indebted- 
ijess  is  likely  to  be  but  little  diminished.  Is  such  persist- 
ence to  be  expected?  We  consider  the  larger  returns  to 
be  chieflv  due  to  four  causes : 

(1)     Unusually  favorable  seasons  that  have  given  a 


Independent  Farmer  Becoming  Tenant.  117 

larger  yield  of  crops.     Experience  lias  taught  that  un- 
interrupted success  for  this  cause  is  rarely  enjoyed. 

(2)  To  a  very  large  foreign  demand.  The  continu- 
ance here  depends  partly  on  the  size  of  home  crops,  part- 
ly on  the  size  of  the  crops  of  foreign  nations,  further, 
to  events;  and  again  to  the  continuance  of  low  export 

prices. 

(3)  To  a  far  more  diversified  farming.  Instead  of 
confining  attention  chiefly  to  the  production  of  corn, 
wheat,  oats,  the  raising  of  swine,  horses  and  cattle,  the 
latter  mainly  for  beef,  for  many  years  a  large  portion 
of  the  western  farmers  have  gone  into  the  poultry,  Qgg 
and  dairy  business ;  the  growing  of  hay  and  vegetables ; 
the  production  of  apples  and  small  fruits.  There  is  a 
limit  to  the  market  for  these  things.  When  competition 
for  this  market  becomes  too  intense  the  profit  sinks  below 
the  living  line.  In  our  opinion  a  close  approach  has 
already  been  made  to  the  dead-line. 

(4)  To  a  smaller  surplus  of  agricultural  products. 
This  is  chiefly  due  to  what  is  said  to  be  a  fact  that  most 
of  the  land  desirable  for  agricultural  purposes  has  been 
portioned  out  into  farms  and  is  now  more  or  less  under 
cultivation.  This  means  a  smaller  annual  gain  in  quan- 
tity of  products— a  lessening  of  degree  of  competition. 
In  other  words  demand  is  gaining  on  supply.  This  to 
farmers  is  the  most  encouraging  feature.  Still  this  may 
be  offset  by  more  intensified  farming  in  the  future,  and 
by  success  in  great  irrigating  schemes  by  which  vast 
tracts  of  land  now  worthless  may  be  made  exceedingly 
productive. 

But  suppose  the  good  times  to  continue  for  many 
years,  will  the  larger  part  of  the  benefit  be  reaped  by  the 
farmers?    We  think  not.    Unless  we  are  much  mistaken 


118  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

the  prices  of  manufactured  goods  have  already  advanced 
to  so  high  a  level  that,  taking  in  the  entire  agricultural 
community,  the  higher  price  of  farm  products  has  been 
fully  offset.  The  products  of  the  farmers  of  the  eastern 
states  have  increased  little  if  any  in  value.  The  gain, 
so  far  as  we  have  noted,  has  been  mostly  in  western 
products,  and  at  the  south  in  cotton.  In  Massachusetts 
the  retail  price  of  milk,  the  farmer's  great  sale  product, 
has,  until  a  few  months,  for  many  years,  remained  un- 
changed. At  least  this  is  the  case  in  Worcester  County. 
The  recent  advance  has  been  chiefly  caused  by  the  higher 
price  of  western  grain.  This  and  other  factors  have  more 
than  offset  all  the  gain  made  by  the  higher  price  of  milk. 
If  the  farmers  as  a  whole  have  received  a  larger  net 
gain,  give  the  manufacturers  a  little  more  time  to  tighten 
the  bands  of  group  monopoly,  and  it  is  certain  that  agri- 
culturists will  not  be  burdened  with  much  superfluous 
cash,  even  if  their  farms  produce  great  crops  for  which 
high  prices  are  received. 

SUMMAKY. 

(1)  Ex-governor  Boutwell  is  convinced  that  farmers 
find  it  hard  to  make  the  two  ends  meet ;  and  W.  J.  Grhent 
believes  that  a  change  is  going  on  that  will  ultimately 
reduce  the  farmer  to  the  sixteenth-century  level. 

(2)  National  statistics  show  that  tenantry  farming 
has  increased  nearly  100%  from  1880-1900;  a  gain  four 
times  that  made  in  farm  ownership.  In  all  the  sections 
and  states,  ownership  is  rapidly  losing  ground. 


How  the  Eastern  Farmer  Has  Fared.  119 


CHAPTER  X. 

How  THE  Faemer  Has  Fared  in  the  Manufacturing 

Section  of  the  Union. 

The  North  Atlantic  Division,  which  comprises  the 
states  of  Maine,  New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  Massachu- 
setts, Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  New  York,  New  Jersey 
and  Pennsylvania,  may  well  be  called  the  factory  or 
work-shop  of  the  nation.  In  1900  the  value  of  the  manu- 
factured products  of  these  nine  states  was  closely  equal 
to  that  of  the  other  thirty-five,  being  the  immense  sum  of 
$6,498,000,000.  The  number  of  the  wage-earners  in  this 
industry  exceeded  that  of  those  so  engaged  in  the  other 
thirty-five  states.  The  total  population  of  the  nine  states 
is  to  the  number  engaged  in  agriculture  there  as  20  to  1. 
Now  if  proximity  to  manufacturing  centres,  to  large 
masses  of  food  consumers,  is  all  that  is  required  to  enrich 
farmers,  those  of  this  section  should  have  enjoyed  the 
highest  degree  of  prosperity.  And  if  protection  is  bene- 
ficial to  the  agricultural  industry,  the  three  decades  of 
high  tariff  that  followed  the  war  period  would  naturally 
be  expected  to  show  larger  gains  in  farmers'  property 
than  in  the  decade  of  low  duties  that  preceded  the  war. 
Here  is  the  record,  and  each  one  can  judge  for  himself: 

The  North  Atlantic  Division. 


Value  of  Farms,  in- 
cluding Buildings. 

Percentage 
of  Gain  or 
Loss. 

Average  Value 
per  Farm  of  all 
Farm  Property. 

Percent- 
age     of 
Gain  or 
Loss. 

1850 

$1,455,000,000 

$3,440 

1860 

2,122,000,000 

+45.8 

4,344 

+26.2 

1870 

2,527,000,000 

+19.1 

4,899 

+12.8 

1880 

2,803,000,000 

+10.9 

4,592 

6.2 

1890 

2,539,000,000 

9.4 

4,510 

1.8 

1900 

2,477,000,000 

2.4 

4,355 

3.4 

120  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

The  first  table  shows  a  gain  in  ten  years,  under  low 
duties,  of  $667,000,000,  while  the  farms,  with  high  duties, 
in  twenty  years,  1880-1900,  sustain  a  loss  of  $326,000,000. 
The  percentage  of  gain  in  value  from  1850-60  is  well  up 
towards  50%,  while  in  the  twenty  years  mentioned  there 
was  a  loss  of  nearly  12%.  In  the  second  table,  while  the 
average  farm,  with  its  live  stock  and  machinery  increased 
in  value  over  $900  from  1850-60,  there  was  a  loss  of  $237 
from  1880-1900.  Another  glance  at  the  table  shows  that 
forty  years  of  hard  work  from  1860  to  1900  increased  the 
average  farmer's  property  just  $11.  The  average  farm 
is  somewhat  smaller  in  area  in  recent  years  than  for- 
merly. We  repeat  to  give  emphasis.  Under  a  revenue 
tariff  the  value  of  the  average  farmer's  possession 
increased  in  ten  years  $900,  while  forty  years  of  the 
highest  protection  ever  known  added  but  $11. 

The  Situation  in  Eegakd  to  Tenure  of  Possession. 

Taking  this  division  of  states  as  a  whole,  there  was  a 
decrease  in  the  percentage  of  those  who  owned  the  farms 
they  tilled  of  over  8%  in  twent}^  years,  1880-1900.  In 
1900  over  38%  of  such  farms  were  mortgaged.  Massa- 
chusetts, the  fourth  state  in  value  of  manufactures,  sus- 
tained a  loss  of  3.3%  in  farm  ownership,  and  of  this 
37%  was  mortgaged.  Pennsylvania,  rank  two  in  value 
of  manufactured  articles  in  1900,  shows  a  slight  decline 
in  farm  ownership  of  a  little  more  than  1%,  but  one-third 
of  these  were  mortgaged.  The  gain  in  tenant  farms  was 
28.5%  in  the  twenty  years.  New  York,  the  largest  man- 
ufacturing state  in  the  Union,  shows  a  fall-off  of  farm 
ownership  of  over  14%.  Of  the  farms  owned  46%  were 
mortgaged.  The  Springfield  Weekly  Eepublican  of  July 
25,  1907,  states  that  the  United  States  Agricultural  De- 


Hoiv  tlie  Eastern  Farmer  Has  Fared.  121 

partment  has  recently  been  investigating  tlie  deprecia- 
tion of  farm  values  in  this  State.  "Half  a  dozen  of  the 
leading  agricultural  counties  of  the  State  show  declines 
in  total  farm  valuations  of  from  10  to  40%  since  1880. 
The  abandoned  farms  of  the  State  contain  over  1,200,000 
acres,  an  area  equal  to  the  whole  of  Ehode  Island,  or  half 
that  of  Connecticut.  Many  farms  can  be  bought  to-day 
at  50%  less  than  the  cost  of  the  building  thereon."  "The 
counties  that  show  largest  depreciation  in  value  of  farm 
lands  lie  along  the  great  highway  of  commerce  and  popu- 
lation between  the  East  and  the  West,  including  the  rich 
valleys  and  fertile  low-lying  hills  of  the  Mohawk 
region  traversed  by  the  New  York  Central  Eailroad." 

The  Xorth  Atlantic  Division,  when  compared  with 
other  sections  of  the  nation,  shows  a  surprisingly  small 
gain  in  number  of  tenants,  only  26.5%;  this  against  a 
South  Atlantic  gam  of  82%,  North  Central  76%,  South 
Central  151%,  and  Western  of  244%.  The  percentage  in 
gain  of  tenants  in  Pennsylvania  was  28.5,  New  York 
35%,  while  in  Massachusetts  the  percentage  was  but 
14.7%.  Why  this  comparatively  small  gain  in  the  num- 
ber of  rented  farms  in  this  division  of  states  and 
especially  in  Massachusetts?  Light  is  thrown  on  the 
subject  by  a  prominent  Massachusetts  man.  Ex-govern- 
or Washburn  said:  "All  men  speak  well  of  agriculture, 
but  all  who  can  shun  it."  The  farmers  here  are  in  close 
proximity  to  the  manufacturing  centres,  where  far  larger 
profits  and  wages  are  received  than  in  agriculture.  Why, 
then,  should  men  become  farm  tenants! 

The  Deceptive  Aspect  of  Census  Returns  in  the  Value 

OF  Agricultural  Products. 

If  the  agricultural  situation  is  as  has  been  described  in 
this  and  preceding  chapters,  how  can  the  great  increase 


122         .  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

in  total  value  of  such  products  for  the  last  decade,  1890- 
1900,  be  explained  ?  Leaving  out  new  states  where  the 
continual  addition  of  hundreds  of  new  farms  would 
necessarily  cause  a  rapid  increase  in  total  value  of  such 
products,  and  gains  are  everywhere  shown  ranging  from 
25  to  over  100%.  The  gains  in  the  states  of  the  North 
Atlantic  Division  are  seen  to  be  from  about  50  to  75%; 
those  of  the  North  Central  from  75  to  over  100%).  Ken- 
tucky, Tennessee,  Texas,  Virginia  and  West  Virginia  are 
near  the  100%c  class;  some  of  the  South  Central  States  as 
low  as  from  25  to  50 %c.  According  to  census  reports  the 
national  gain  from  1890-1900  was  over  91  %c.  Yet  on  the 
excellent  authority  of  Mr.  North,  already  quoted  in  chap- 
ter I,  we  are  assured  that  in  fifty  years,  1850-1900,  the 
gain  in  total  value  of  agricultural  products  was  less  than 
two-fold.  If  the  gain  in  the  ten  years  mentioned  was 
91%o,  it  is  seen,  if  credit  is  given  to  Mr.  North's  state- 
ment, that  there  was  scarcely  any  gain  at  all  from  1850-90. 
The  explanation  of  the  conundrum  is  that  the  census 
reports  of  the  total  value  of  agricultural  products  for  the 
two  periods  1890  and  1900  are  not  comparable.  The 
value  of  very  many  farm  products  were  taken  into 
account  in  1900  by  the  national  census  for  the  first  time. 
In  the  magazine  article  before  referred  to,  Mr.  North 
says :  ' '  The  census  of  1890  placed  the  value  of  the  prod- 
ucts of  agriculture  at  $2,460,000,000,  but  it  omitted  the 
value  of  live  stock  on  farms,  of  stock  sold  for  slaughter, 
etc.,  and  statisticians  have  accordingly  increased  the 
figure  to  $3,289,000,000."  That  ''etc."  of  Mr.  North's 
includes,  we  think,  all  the  following  products :  forest 
products,  honey  and  wax,  forage,  clover  seeds,  other 
vegetables  than  potatoes,  dried  beans  and  peas,  peanuts, 
broom  corn,  hops,  ''miscellaneous"    seeds,    flowers    and 


Hoiv  the  Eastern  Farmer  Has  Fared.  123 

« 

plants,  nursery  products,  small  fruits,  grapes  and  nuts. 
The  value  of  these  products  in  1890  was  estimated  by  the 
statisticians  to  be  $829,000,000.  The  value  of  all  prod- 
ucts (formerly  omitted)  in  1900  was  not  far  from  $1,741,- 
000,000.  What  the  value  was  in  1890  could  have  been 
little  more  than  a  guess  on  the  part  of  the  statisticians. 
Whether  the  guess  was  near  or  far  off  for  the  nation  as 
a  whole,  no  one  can  tell.  In  the  returns  of  the  various 
states  the  estimated  part  is  not  added  to  1890  returns. 
The  great  percentage  of  gain  shown  by  the  states  in  the 
value  of  agricultural  products  for  this  reason  is  only 
apparent,  not  real;  made  to  appear  so  by  comparing  a 
portion  of  the  value  of  agricultural  products  of  1890  with 
the  full  value  of  1900. 

The  case  of  Massachusetts  is  an  illustration  of  how 
erroneous  is  the  impression  given.  The  national  census 
indicates  a  gain  in  value  of  nearly  "51%  from  1890-1900; 
whereas  the  State  reports  show  a  gain  of  less  than  11% 
from  1885-1895.  A  no  inconsiderable  part  of  the  increase 
shown  by  the  State  census  came  from  a  far  more  minute 
search  than  ever  made  before.  As  indicating  a  more 
searching  examination  is  the  far  greater  number  of  prod- 
ucts specified  by  name.  To  illustrate :  under  the  general 
heading  of  ''Fruits,  Berries  and  Nuts,"  but  four  prod- 
ucts are  named  in  1885 ;  in  1895,  twenty-four.  Under  the 
head  of  ''Vegetables"  in  the  former  year  fifteen  are 
named;  in  the  latter  year,  thirty-four  are  specified. 
Under  the  general  headings  of  "Animal  Products," 
"Food  Products,"  "Wood  Products,"  "Wooden  Prod- 
ucts," and  "Other  Products,"  the  number  of  products 
named  in  1895  is  double  that  named  in  1885. 

A  class  not  included  in  the  latter  year,  but  entered  in 
1895,  comes  under  the  general  head  .of  "Products  from 


124  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

the  Mines,  Quarries,  Pits,  etc.";  seventeen  products  are 
named.  To  show  what  close  scraping  was  done  to  give 
as  large  a  total  value  as  possible,  we  note  one  dollar's 
worth  of  gravel  from  Belchertown,  Norfolk  and  Milford. 
Sudbury  and  Grafton  are  each  credited  with  muck  to  the 
value  of  $1.  Four  towns  have  a  return  of  $1  of  sand; 
three  towns  the  same  value  of  fish.  The  total  value  of 
this  class  of  products  is  $226,549.  It  is  evident,  then, 
that  if  the  same  thoroughness  had  been  exercised  in  the 
State  report  of  1885  as  in  1895,  the  increase  in  gain  in 
value  of  agricultural  products  of  11%  would  have  been 
largely  reduced.  Of  course,  it  is  possible  that  a  state 
whose  gains  from  1885-95  were  less  than  11%  might  have 
gains  from  1890-1900  of  51%,  as  indicated  by  the  national 
census.  But  the  fact  of  many  omitted  products  at  one 
census-taking  makes  valueless  any  comparison  in  the 
latter  case ;  and  failure  here,  there  is  no  other  alternative 
than  to  fall  back  on  the  State  censuses  that  were  more 
carefully  made. 

(2)  In  still  another  respect,  as  regards  the  total  value 
of  agricultural  products,  the  census  figures  are  rhost 
deceptive;  they  imjDly  far  larger  returns  than  the  facts 
warrant.  In  proving  this  we  shall  confine  remarks 
chiefly  to  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  though  the  charge  is 
applicable  to  a  more  or  less  extent  to  most  parts  of  the 
United  States.  We  refer  to  the  great  duplication  of 
values.  Massachusetts  officials  carrv  the  matter  one 
step  further  than  the  national  officials.  This  is  the  value 
of  manure  made  on  the  farms.  This  product  is  treated 
just  as  if  it  were  sold  for  cash  and  the  money  deposited  in 
the  farmer's  pocket.  There  is  no  reason  why  its  value 
should  appear  as  a  part  of  the  farmer's  income.  While 
it  is  a  product  of  the  farms,  it  is  only  when  changed  into 


Hoiv  the  Eastern  Farmer  Has  Fared.  125 

the  forms    of   hay,  vegetables,  etc.,  that   profit   accrues 
from  it.     The  introduction  of  its  value  into  the  account 
is  a  bluff  game  whose  only  conceivable  object  would  seem 
to  be  to  present  a  larger  total  value.     It  is  just  as  much 
a  duplication  of  value  as  when,  after  an  entry  of  hay  and 
grain  values,  the  value  of  milk,  beef,  pork,  poultry  and 
eggs  made  from  these  products  is  also  included.     But  the 
duplicating  does  not  stop  here.     The  butter  and  cheese 
made  on  the  farms,  and  cream  sold  from  the  very  milk 
already  put  on  record,  are  entered  at  their  face  values. 
There  is  no  denial  of   the  matter   in   the    State    report. 
Under  the  head  of  "Duplications  of  Value  in  the  Dairy 
Eeturns"  occur  these  passages:  ''In  the  first  place,  the 
milk  product  has  been  obtained  without  regard  to  the 
subsequent  use  made  of  it,  and  may  be  considered  accu- 
rate when  taken  by  itself.     The  returns  as  to  cream  are 
also  accurate  when  considered  alone,  but  the  value  of  the 
cream  is  also  included  in  the  value    of   the    milk.     The 
'cream  used'  means  cream  consumed  by  the  family  as 
cream,  that  is,  does  not  include  cream  turned  into  butter. 
The  value  of  the  butter,  complete  by  itself,^  includes  the 
value  of  the  cream  entering  into  its  composition,  a  value 
which  is  also  included  in  the  value  of  the  milk."     Again, 
' '  The  duplications  of  value  due  to  the  manipulation  and 
transformation  of  products  in    the   various    farm   pro- 
cesses are  not  confined  to  the  dairy  products.     They  are 
onlv  more  manifest  there  on  account  of  the  simplicity  of 
the  operations.     Of  course,  the  value  of  hay  consumed 
by  the  stock  is  in  reality  transformed  into  the  value  of 
animal  products"  (a  part  of   which   is    manure),  "and 
milk,  and  in  the  latter  case,  appears  finally  in  the  value 
of  the  butter.     The  value  of  cereals  consumed  by  the 
poultry  is  represented  in  the  value  of  poultry  products. 


126  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

and  the    same    effect    may  be  traced  in  various   direc- 
tions." 

The  vahie  of  hay,  fodder,  cereals,  etc.,  in  1895  was 

returned  as  $13,595,000 

The  value  of  the  products,  dairy,  animal,  poultry, 
meats,  largely  produced  by  the  consumption  of 
above  hay,  fodder,  cereals,  etc.,  23,637,000 

The  sum  of  the  two  totals,  $37,233,000 

The  value  of  all  other  products,  $15,647,000 

Tims  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  total  value  of  agri- 
cultural products  in  1895,  as  given  in  the  State  census,  is 
largely  of  fictitious  value  when  considered  for  the  pur- 
pose of  ascertaining  the  real  income  received  by  farmers. 
The  value  of  products  whose  totals  run  into  the  millions 
is  repeated  twice,  sometimes  three  times,  and  we  are  not 
sure  but  what  in  some  cases  four  times.  The  value  of 
hay,  grain,  etc.  (save  the  small  part  sold,  and  this  is 
undoubtedly  offset  several  times  over  by  purchased  west- 
ern grain)  reappears  chiefly  in  the  dairy,  poultry,  etc., 
products.  It  may  be  disputed  that  the  value  of  the  hay 
and  grain  fed  to  furnish  the  needed  horse-power  is  to  be 
looked  for  in  the  value  of  the  products,  vegetables  large- 
ly. But  in  no  other  way  is  the  farmer  paid  this  expense, 
and  the  power  is  as  essential  to  the  carrying  on  of  busi- 
ness as  the  manure  is  for  the  growth  of  plants. 

The  value  of  hay,  grain,  etc.,  and  manure  is  given  as 
$15,965,000.  The  State  report  indicates  a  further  dupli- 
cation in  dairy  products  of  $3,152,000.  This  added  to 
above  duplication  gives  a  total  of  over  $19,000,000.  The 
latter  sum  taken  from  the  State  valuation  leaves  a  remain- 
der of  less  than  $34,000,000  as  the  amount  of  income  of 
Massachusetts  farmers.  This  is  quite  a  fall  from  the 
reputed  sum  of  $52,880,000  for  the  year  1895. 


Hoiv  the  Eastern  Farmer  Has  Fared.  127 

Has  the  home  market  theory  in  its  application  to  agri- 
culture been  vindicated  in  Massachusetts?  It  has 
already  been  demonstrated  beyond  dispute  that,  taking 
the  North  Atlantic  Division  as  a  whole,  the  theory  has 
completely  failed  to  work.  The  golden  age  for  the  farmer 
was  before  the  protective  system  was  initiated.  How  has 
it  succeeded  in  the  State  of  the  division,  Massachusetts, 
where  the  home  market  theory  has  had  the  best  oppor- 
tunity of  enriching  the  farmer?  After  forty  years  of 
the  highest  protection  it  is  time  to  inquire.  The  state 
ranked  fourth  in  1900  as  regards  the  value  of  manufac- 
tured products,  and  from  the  density  of  its  population 
gathered  into  numerous  large  centres  might  well  be 
called  the  State  of  cities. 

The  above  calculation  indicated  that  the  total  valua- 
tion of  agricultural  products  in  1895  was  about  $34,000,- 
000.  The  State  report  of  that  year  failed  to  give  the  num- 
ber of  farmers  whose  production  this  represented.  But 
the  national  census  of  1900  states  the  number  of  farmers ' 
families  who  owned  or  hired  farms  to  be  36,510.  Wages 
were  paid  and  fertilizers  were  bought  to  the  amount  of 
about  $9,000,000.  The  interest  on  the  property  involved 
at  4%  (savings  bank  rates)  was  about  $8,800,000.  The 
value  of  western  hay  and  grain  bought  above  the  amount 
of  the  same  sold  of  Massachusetts  growth,  we  call  $1,000,- 
000,  though  doubtless  twice  as  much.  Deducting  these 
amounts  from  the  total  real  income  and  $15,200,000  is  the 
sum  earned  by  the  labor  of  the  farmers'  families,  an 
average  of  $416  to  each  family.  But  for  the  farmer's 
capital  this  sum  would  be  all  he  had  to  pay  personal  and 
family  expenses,  keep  buildings  and  all  farm  implements 
in  repair,  maintain  the  value  of  all  live  stock,  board  a 
hired  man  a  portion  of  the  year,  keep  buildings  insured, 
and  shoe  the  horses. 


128  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

• 

How  mucH  better  than  this  is  the  prospect  given  by  the 
United  States  census,  1900! 

Here  we  are  informed  by  census  officials,  in  answer  to 
inquiry  sent  on,  that  ''no  duplications  took  place  as  be- 
tween milk,  butter  and  cream,''  as  in  the  Massachusetts 
State  census  of  1895. 

The  United  States  census  gives  the  average  value  per 
farm  of  products  of  North  Atlantic  States  as  $984.  This 
is  the  gross  income : 

To  obtain  net,  we  deduct  value  fed  to  live  stock,  $254.00 
Paid  for  hired  help,  105,00 
Fertilizers,  23.00 
Interest  on  $2219  (land)  at  4  per  cent.,  88.76 
Interest  on,  and  maintenance  of  values,  $2136 (build- 
ings, machinerj^,  live  stock),  8  per  cent.,  170.88 
Tax  (call  value  but  $3000  for  tax  purpose)   at  $15 

per  thousand,  45.00 


Total,  $686.64 

Here  a  sufficient  rate  of  interest  was  allowed  to  cover 
maintenance  of  values,  keeping  buildings  and  machinery 
in  repairs  (in  the  latter  case  providing  new  when  worn 
out),  and  furnishing  the  means  to  buy  cows  or  horses  as 
required  to  maintain  value  of  live  stock. 

After  deducting  the  value  of  the  various  items,  what 
remains  is  $297.36.  From  this  must  be  still  further 
deducted  the  board  of  a  hired  man  for  a  portion  of  the 
year,  and  the  cost  of  shoeing  the  horses.  What  then 
remains  (less  than  $250,  we  judge)  represents  the  total 
labor  earnings  of  a  farmer's  family.  He  has  this  advan- 
tage over  the  workman,  a  cheap  house  to  live  in,  value 
about  $1000;  so  that  the  small  income  he  receives  is  not 
diminished  by  a  rent  bill. 


Row  the  Eastern  Farmer  Has  Fared.  129 

Now  what  does  the  average  workman's  family  receive! 
In  a  Massachusetts  Labor  Report  of  1875  Mr.  Carroll  D. 
Wright  tells  of  an  examination  made  by  the  bureau  into 
the  condition  of  397  families  of  many  manufacturing 
trades.  The  fathers  of  these  families  earned  on  an  aver- 
age in  a  year  $574.89.  The  other  members  of  the 
family,  boys  and  girls,  earned  enough  to  bring  the  aver- 
age per  family  to  $762.72.  Seven  nationalities  of  wage- 
earners  were  included  in  the  397  families. 

According  to  the  April  number  of  World's  Work,  1905, 
the  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  at  Washington  has  been 
trying  to  ascertain  what  is  the  increased  cost  of  living. 
^'For  the  jDurpose  of  its  study  of  the  diet  of  working  peo- 
ple, it  inquired  into  the  habits  of  13,000  persons  who  live 
in  cities  in  thirty-three  states.  From  this  study  was  con- 
structed an  ^average'  family,  consisting  of  5.31  persons. 
The  family  income  is  here  found  to  be  $827.19  a  year." 

"Part  IV  of  the  Annual  Eeport  of  the  (Massachusetts) 
Bureau  of  Statistics  of  Labor  for  1907, ' '  gives  these  esti- 
mates as  the  average  earnings  in  nine  leading  industries : 
males  $585.45,  females  $383.25,  young  persons  $291.39.  On 
the  same  page,  362,  of  this  report,  referring  to  these  esti- 
mates, it  says :  ' '  They  are  substantiated  also  by  the 
returns  of  the  eleventh  census  taken  for  the  year  ending 
December,  1904,  and  for  which  the  average  yearly  earn- 
ings for  men  in  Massachusetts  were  returned  as  $546.60, 
women  $343.58,  and  children  $227.11,  the  difference  in 
wages  for  women  and  children  being  somewhat  affected 
by  the  age  limit,  which  was  x)laced  at  sixteen  by  the  cen- 
sus and  twentv-one  bv  the  schedule  for  annual  statistics 
of  manufactures." 

It  is  evident  from  these  various  reports  from  the  best 
authorities  that  the  farmer's  family  for  its  labor  receives 

9 


130  The  Tariff  and  the  Faryner. 

little,  if  any,  more  than  half  the  earnings  of  the  work- 
man's family. 

As  having  an  important  bearing,  it  should  be  said  that 
the  Massachusetts  State  census  for  1895  returned  a  far 
greater  value  of  agricultural  products  than  ever  before, 
or  was  returned  by  the  national  census  of  1900.  Yet  $416 
was  the  labor  earnings  of  the  farmer's  family,  from 
which  further  charges  to  the  amount  of  from  $50  to  $100 
were  still  to  be  taken. 

Strongly  confirmatory  of  above  figures  is  the  evidence 
of  ex-Congressman  J.  H.  "Walker,  formerly  a  prominent 
shoe  manufacturer,  and  for  many  years  one  of  the  fore- 
most in  New  England  in  advocating  the  cause  of  protec- 
tion. He  was  credited  by  many  as  very  well  informed  in 
statistical  matter.  In  1878  a  Congressional  committee 
was  on  an  investigating  tour,  and  this  question  was  put 
to  Mr.  Walker:  ''Is  it  practical  for  the  government  to 
assist  laborers  to  become  land  owners  and  farmers?*' 
He  replied :  "  I  think  that  scheme  one  of  the  most  imprac- 
ticable of  the  long  list  of  proposed  remedies  for  the  inevi- 
table. The  wages  of  agriculturists,  including  the  income 
of  small  farmers,  is  not  half  that  of  the  average  mechan- 
ics, excepting  cotton  and  woolen  operatives ;  and  as  it  is  a 
question  of  wages  more  than  of  work,  the  average 
chronic  beggar  for  work  would  only  be  insulted  when, 
being  upon  his  land,  he  learned  the  abstinence  practiced, 
and  work  done  by  small  farmers." 

We  have  always  thought  that  this  statement  of  an 
advocate  of  protection  was  made  at  an  unguarded 
moment. 

The  number  of  ''farmers,  planters  and  overseers"  was 
given  in  1900  as  5,674,875 ;  of  "  agricultural  laborers ' '  as 
4,410,877.     The  labor  bill  for  the  average  farm  was  but 


Row  the  Eastern  Farmer  Has  Fared.  131 

$62.  Ample  evidence  this  that  most  all  the  work  was 
done  by  the  farmer  and  his  hoys.  Only  occasionally  in 
seed-time  and  harvest  does  the  average  farmer  hire  help. 
What,  then,  is  the  average  farmer  but  one  of  Mr.  Walk- 
er's ''small  farmers,"  whose  income  '4s  not  half  that  of 
average  mechanics,"  with  the  exception  he  notes!  What 
stronger  backing  can  be  asked  for  the  above  comparison 
of  the  farmer's  family  earnings  with  that  of  the  work- 
man's family! 

Will  any  one  claim  that  the  average  wage-earner  is 
entitled  to  receive  more  for  his  efforts  than  the  average 
farmer  for  his!  We  affirm  that  the  ability  and  educa- 
tion required  to  carry  on  a  farm  greatly  exceed  those 
necessary  to  perform  the  duties  of  the  average  wage- 
earner.  Let  us  see.  The  farmer  unites  in  his  person  the 
office  of  laborer  and  business  manager.  As  a  laborer  he 
must  know  how  to  use  at  least  fairly  well  the  many  tools 
and  machines  required  for  planting,  caring  for  and  har- 
vesting a  variety  of  crops.  He  must  know  not  only  how 
to  hold  plow,  run  a  planting  or  sowing  machine,  drive  a 
mowing  machine,  but  have  considerable  skill  in  the  use 
of  carpenter's  tools  so  as  to  be  able  to  make  any  repairs 
of  farm  machines  and  buildings.  Besides  in  many  cases 
he  must  be  able  to  milk  the  cows  and  drive  horses.  As  a 
business  manager,  he  must  know  when  to  put  in  the  vari- 
ous crops,  and  how  to  care  for  them;  and  later,  when 
and  how  to  harvest,  and  when  and  where  to  dispose  of 
them  to  the  best  advantage.  To  do  this  successfully 
requires  much  experience  and  good  judgment.  Besides, 
he  has  general  oversight  over  everything  done,  and  over 
all  property.  This  usually  includes  the  care  of  horses, 
often  of  cows;  in  the  latter  case  he  must  attend  to  the 
sale  of  the  milk.    These  are  far  from  being  all  his  duties. 


132  The  Tariff  and  the  Fanner. 

The  duties  performed  by  the  millions  of  those  engaged 
in  the  hundreds  of  manufacturing  trades  are  so  various 
as  to  preclude  any  description  of  them.  Sufficient  to  say 
that  the  part  performed  by  the  average  unit  of  persons 
is  restricted  usually  to  the  narrowest  limits.  In  perhaps 
the  majority  of  cases  it  consists  in  waiting  upon  and 
slightly  assisting  machinery  in  doing  the  work.  This, 
which  at  times  requires  a  trained  eye  and  a  skilled  hand, 
the  result  of  years  of  practice,  is  in  the  main  largely  of 
a  mechanical  nature  where  the  man  is  little  more  than  a 
part  of  the  machine.  AVhere  the  few  motions  involved 
are  continually  repeated  fifty  or  a  hundred  times  a  day, 
vear  in  and  vear  out,  little  if  anv  mental  effort  is 
required.  Now  as  compared  to  a  person  whose  daily 
em2^1o^TQent  this  description  fits,  the  carrying  on  of  a 
farm  requires  far  superior  attainments  and  should  in 
consequence  receive  a  much  larger  reward. 

The  Moke  Impoktaxt  Facts  of  the  Chapter. 

(1)  Statisticae.  (a)  An  increase  in  value  of  total 
agricultural  property  in  the  Xorth  Atlantic  Division  in 
ten  years  under  low  duties  of  about  46%  ;  and  a  decrease 
in  value  of  the  same  in  two  decades  of  highest  protection 
of  nearlv  12%. 

(b)  A  gain  in  vahiG  per  farm  of  all  farm  property  of 
$904:  in  ten  years  of  low  duties,  while  forty  years  of  high 
protection  shows  a  gain  of  only  $11. 

(2)  In  New  York,  the  very  centre  of  the  manufactur- 
ing section,  are  abandoned  farms  containing  1,200,000 
acres,  while  some  of  the  leading  agricultural  counties  of 
the  State  show  declines  in  total  farm  valuation  since  1880 
of  from  10  to  40%. 


How  the  Eastern  Farmer  Has  Fared.  133 

(3)  The  great  apparent  gain  in  value  of  agricultural 
products  in  the  last  decade  was  largel}^  due  both  in  this 
division  of  states  and  throughout  the  United  States  to  a 
far  more  searching  investigation. 

(4)  When  allowance  is  made  for  census  duplications 
of  values,  it  is  seen  that  the  earnings  of  the  average  Mas- 
sachusetts farmer's  family  is  less  than  half  the  wage 
received  by  the  workman's  family.  For  the  farmer  of  all 
the  North  Atlantic  States  the  situation  appears  worse 
than  for  the  Massachusetts  farmer. 


134  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

To  What  ake  National  Pkospekity  and  High  Rate  of 

Wages  Due? 

This  subject  does  not  strictly  relate  to  the  farmer's 
interest  in  the  tariff,  but  to  points  in  dispute  that  have 
an  important  bearing.  Not  to  say  a  few  words  upon 
them  would  be  like  an  army  leaving  behind  it  a  fortress 
of  the  enemy. 

We  dispute  the  claim  that  national  prosperity  and  high 
wages  are  due  to  the  protective  system. 

National  prosperity  and  industrial  progress,  we  claim, 
are  due  to  our  unrivaled  natural  resources  and  their 
development  by  the  most  industrious,  enterprising  and 
ingenious  of  all  people.  The  natural  resources  consist 
chiefly  of  the  riches  of  the  soil  and  mineral  wealth.  The 
value  of  these  taken  from  the  ground  in  1850  must  have 
been  over  $2,000,000,000.  There  was  a  steady  rise  in 
value  year  after  year  till  1900,  when  the  figures  stand  at 
$5,800,000,000.  It  is  claimed  that  intensified  farming 
and  scientific  treatment  can  wring  annually  from  the 
earth  twice  or  thrice  what  is  now  obtained. 

Mr.  Carroll  D.  Wright  says,  ''The  natural  resources  of 
the  United  States  consist  of  almost  every  species  of  raw 
material  produced  by  or  from  the  earth  essential  to  make 
a  nation  great  in  the  three  lines  of  development — agricul- 
ture, manufacture,  commerce."  Again,  '''The  United 
States,  according  to  careful  estimates,  possesses  at  least 
50%  of  the  coal  area  of  the  world.  Our  supply  is  esti- 
mated to  be  equal  to  the  demand  for  1000  years.'' 


National  Prosperity  and  High  Wages.  135 

Mr.  Henry  Gannett,  in  tlie  Forum  of  May,  1902,  gives 
condensed  statements  showing  to  what  extent  the  United 
States  is  suppljdng  the  world  with  products  drawn  from 
its  natural  resources.  Mr.  Gannett  was  geographer  of 
the  tenth  and  eleventh  censuses,  and  since  1882  has  been 
chief  geographer  of  the  United  States  Survey.  In 
mining,  he  says,  we  produce  34%  of  all  the  iron  ore  that 
is  mined;  34%  of  all  pig  iron  comes  from  our  furnaces, 
and  37%  of  all  steel  comes  from  our  crucibles  and  con- 
verters. Of  gold  we  produce  31%,  silver  33,  copper  56, 
lead  25,  quicksilver  29,  and  zinc  25%.  ''Tin  is  the  only 
metal  of  importance  in  the  arts  which  we  do  not  produce 
in  quantities."  Of  all  products  mined  the  United  States 
produces  about  39%. 

Yet  it  seems  this  vast  nation,  producing  a  large  part  of 
all  that  is  required  to  sustain  the  world,  must  be  care- 
fully guarded  from  other  far  less-favored  nations.  How 
could  a  nation  possessed  of  all  this  wealth  of  natural 
resources  be  anything  but  prosperous? 

All  these  almost  inexhaustible  stores  of  agricultural 
and  mineral  wealth  were  in  the  ground  when  the  Indian 
held  sway,  but  there  was  then  no  industrial  progress. 
Nor  was  there  much  for  more  than  a  century  after  the 
white  man  came.  Not  till  the  printing-press  gathered 
from  thousands  of  sources,  and  everywhere  scattered  the 
knowledge  obtained,  did  industrial  progress  make  rapid 
strides.  To  whom  are  we  indebted  for  the  printing-press? 
Primarily  to  the  Chinese!  The  honor  of  inventing  and 
making  practical  movable  types  is  claimed  by  some  for  a 
Dutchman,  by  others  for  a  German. 

The  chief  factors  that  come  next  in  the  line  of  develop- 
ment are  the  factory  and  railroad  systems.  The  latter 
everj^here  opened  up  the  vast  wilderness  to  settlement, 


136  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

and  was  the  connecting  link  between  the  farmers  and 
those  who  toil  in  the  shops,  bringing  food  and  raw  manu- 
facturing material  to  the  latter,  and  carrying  back  to  the 
farms  clothing,  farm  machinery,  etc.  To  whom  are  we 
most  indebted  for  the  steam  engine  ?  To  an  Englishman. 
Whose  inventive  mind  caused  steel  rails  to  be  substituted 
for  iron  and  greatly  cheapened  the  cost!  Another 
Englishman.  Who  or  what  greatly  increased  the  cost  of 
building  railroads?  Our  protective  system,  by  the  heavy 
duties  imposed  on  rails. 

The  factory  system  did  not  have  its  beginning  here. 
Mr.  Carroll  D.  Wright  affirms :  ^  ^  The  inauguration  of  the 
factory  system  in  the  United  States  was  some  fifteen 
years  later  than  its  birth  in  England. ' ' 

Mr.  0.  P.  Austin,  chief  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  of 
the  United  States,  after  giving  credit  to  our  great  rail- 
road system  as  the  chief  cause  of  our  wonderful  develop- 
ment, states  that  "the  value  of  the  manufactures  of  the 
United  States  is  nearly  double  that  of  the  United  King- 
dom, and  about  equal  to  that  of  G-ermany,  France  and 
Eussia  combined." 

Yet  this  giant  dare  not  face  its  weak  opponents  in  the 
open  field. 

The  industrial  situation  cannot  be  better  described 
than  in  the  words  of  Mr.  Henry  Clews '  ' '  Special  Weekly 
Market"  letter  of  Dec.  28,  1901:  ''Since  1896  the  growth 
of  our  manufacturing  enterprises  has  many  times 
exceeded  the  growth  of  agriculture,  and  we  are  rapidly 
changing  from  an  agricultural  to  a  manufacturing  nation. 
With  our  magnificent  mineral  resources,  with  unequalled 
facilities  for  transportation,  with  unlimited  supply  of 
capital  to  aid  enterprise,  with  a  better  supply  of  skilled 
labor  than  any  competitor,  with  unrivaled  capacity  for 


National  Prosperity  and  High  Wages.  137 

organization  and  the  use  of  machinery,  all  backed  with 
abundance  of  energy,  brains  and  opportunity— with  all 
these  requisites  in  plenty,  is  it  surprising  that  our  situa- 
tion is  the  wonder  and  envy  of  the  world?'' 

Yet  with  everything  in  its  favor,  this,  the  largest  agri- 
cultural and  manufacturing  nation,  is  threatened  with 
bankruptcy  and  ruin  if  its  citizens  are  allowed  to  trade 
on  an  even  footing  with  the  people  of  other  nations ! 
How,  then,  in  the  old  colonial  days,  when  there  was  lack 
of  everything,  and  when  the  English  Parliament  sought 
by  strict  legislative  enactments  to  crush  out  manufactur- 
ing enterprise,  did  industrial  progress  go  steadily  for- 
ward! 

Whence  came  the  ability  to  create  the  condition 
described  by  Mr.  Clews !  A  large  part  is  inherited  from 
way  back  before  the  first  tariff  act.  In  Bishop 's  History 
of  American  Manufactures  it  is  said  of  the  colonists : 
''They  were  gathered  from  the  most  productive  and 
ingenious  nations  of  Europe." 

High  wages  are  due  to  the  great  demand  for  and 
efficiency  of  labor.  From  what  has  immediately  pre- 
ceded, it  is  evident  that  the  call  for  labor  in  developing  the 
resources  of  the  nation  must  have  immensely  exceeded 
that  ever  known  by  any  nation  in  any  age.  High  wages 
were  here  before  the  first  tariff  act,  and  were  the  reason 
given  for  the  need  of  such  legislation.  The  talk  that 
under  free  trade  wages  would  fall  to  the  European  level 
is  merely  for  pohtical  effect.  For  some  fifty  years  free- 
trade  England  has  been  in  a  few  hours '  sail  of  Germany, 
with  its  far  lower  rate  of  wages.  Have  English  wages 
fallen  to  the  German  level!  No,  and  we  doubt  if  there 
has  been  relatively  any  approach  to  the  higher  level. 
The  United  States   with  its  vast  population  of  80,000,- 


138  -   The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

000  of  people  has  its  own  level  of  wages.  The  high  level 
is  not  given  by  one  kind  of  occupation,  but  is  the  effect 
of  competition  in  all — in  agriculture,  manufacture,  trade, 
transportations,  personal  service.  The  service  of  all  but 
manufacture  must  be  rendered  in  this  country,  and  a 
large  part  of  manufacture  also.  Under  free  trade  there 
are  doubtless  a  few  branches  of  the  latter  industry  that 
would  be  lost  to  this  country,  but  if  the  past  is  any  guide 
this  would  be  balanced  by  an  equal  gain  in  foreign  trade. 
How  absurd  it  is  to  believe  that  the  loss  of  say  $300,000,- 
000  or  $400,000,000  worth  of  work  would  cause  a  fall  in 
wages.  That  amount  is  an  exceedingly  small  fraction  ia 
the  total  sum  earned  by  all  the  people.  Have  the  mil- 
lions of  emigrants  coming  to  our  shores  caused  a  fall  in 
wages  ?  There  have  not  been  enough  to  supply  sufficient 
help  to  the  farmers. 

Not  only  is  there  a  prodigious  amount  of  work  to  do 
in  this  country,  but  the  means  has  been  provided  by  the 
invention  of  machinery  for  a  very  large  iDroduct  per 
wage  earner. 

Mr.  Gannett,  before  quoted,  says  that  the  average  gross 
manufactured  product  per  hand  in  the  United  States  is 
$1900;  in  France,  $650;  in  England,  $485;  and  in  Ger- 
many, $450.  He  adds,  ''This  enormous  difference  in 
efficiency  between  the  artisans  of  the  United  States  on 
the  one  hand  and  those  of  Europe  on  the  other,  which  is 
due  mainly  to  the  universal  use  in  this  country  of  the 
most  modern  machinerv  and  methods,  enables  us  not  onlv 
to  hold  our  own  markets,  but  to  invade  successfully  the 
home  market  of  other  countries." 

Mr.  North,  one  of  the  directors  of  the  census  of  1900, 
says :  ' '  It  means  that  the  horse-power  employed  in  our 
manufactures  in  1900  was  equal  in  its  producing  capacity 


National  Prosperity  and  High  Wages.  139 

to  the  labor  of  113,000,000  able-bodied  men.  How  insig- 
nificant in  contrast  appears  the  contribution  to  industrial 
wealth  of  the  5,316,802  men,  women  and  children,  the 
actual  average  number  of  persons  employed  in  the  cen- 
sus year  to  direct  and  supplement  this  tremendous 
power." 

The  following  statement  is  found  in  Mr.  Carroll  D. 
Wright's  '' Industrial  Evolution  of  the  United  States": 
^'Looking  at  this  question  without  any  desire  to  be 
mathematically  accurate,  it  is  fair  to  say,  perhaps,  that  it 
would  require  from  fifty  to  one  hundred  million  persons 
in  this  country,  working  under  the  old  system,  to  produce 
the  goods  made  and  do  the  work  performed  by  the  work- 
ers of  to-day  with  the  aid  of  machinery."  Number  of 
workers  5,316,802. 

The  people  of  the  United  States  have  been  frightened 
for  many  years  by  a  vision  of  the  dire  effect  of  losing  a 
little  work  to  the  foreigner  under  free  trade  conditions. 
We  have  given  an  idea  of  the  value  of  products  of  agri- 
culture and  manufacture;  we  add  something  in  regard  to 
the  value  of  the  free-trade  exchanges  that  take  place 
inside  the  United  States.  Senator  George  F.  Hoar  at 
Concord,  Mass.,  in  1900,  put  it  thus:  ''In  internal  com- 
merce that  thrusts  into  insignificance  all  the  foreign  com- 
merce of  the  world. ' ' 

In  Mr.  James  Gr.  Blaine's  book^  a  more  definite  state- 
ment is  made:  ''Fifty-five  millions  of  people  carry  on 
their  exchanges  by  ocean,  by  lake,  by  river,  by  railroad, 
without  the  exactions  of  the  tax-gatherer,  without  the 
detention  of  the  custom-house,  without  even  the  recogni- 
tion of  state  lines.     In  these  great  channels  the  domestic 


1  (< 


Twenty  Years  in  Congress." 


140  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

exchanges  represent  an  annual  value  perliaps  twenty-five 
times  as  great  as  the  total  of  exports  and  imports." 

The  rate  of  duties  from  1850-60  were  from  50  to  100% 
lower  than  under  the  Dingiey  tariff.  Did  foreigners 
crowd  our  producers  out  of  the  home  market?  The 
crushing  answer  given  by  the  census  is :  ^ '  The  value  of 
our  manufactures  increased  85%  that  decade."  Since 
then  there  is  strong  evidence  that  the  rate  of  wages 
abroad  has  risen  relatively  more  than  in  the  United 
States.  The  far  greater  use  of  machinery  here  than  in 
foreign  lands  has  nearly,  if  not  quite,  put  our  manufac- 
turers on  an  even  footing  in  all  branches  with  their  for- 
,eign  rivals. 

Is  tariff  coddling  conducive  to  industrial  progress? 
The  85%  gain  in  value  of  manufactured  products  under 
the  low  duties  of  1850-60  does  not  indicate  it.  Under 
high  duties  the  gain  from  1870-80  was  but  27%;  from 
1880-90,  74.5%,  and  from  1890-1900  only  38.8%. 

Mr.  Carroll  D.  Wright  says:  "It  is  a  curious  fact,  well 
known  to  those  familiar  with  patents,  that  depressed 
periods  often  result  in  the  stimulation  of  invention. ' '  He 
then  goes  on :  ' '  During  the  last  twenty  or  thirty  years  of 
the  period  ending  with  1860  there  were  patented  some  of 
the  most  important  inventions  of  the  age."  This  period, 
with  the  exception  of  from  1842-46,  is  the  time  of  lowest 
rates  of  duties  way  back  nearly  ninety  years. 

The  noted  writer  on  economic  subjects,  Mr.  Francis  A. 
Walker,  quotes  with  approval  this  statement :  "  It  was  an 
axiom  of  the  late  Mr.  John  Kennedy,  who  was  called  the 
father  of  the  cotton  manufacture,  that  no  manufacturing 
improvements  were  ever  made  except  on  threadbare 
profits. ' ' 

We  turn  now  to  the  hard  times  of  1893-97.     In  the  lat- 


National  Prosperity  and  High  Wages.  141 

ter  year,  when  the  Dingley  bill  was  being  constructed,  the 
two  Eepublican  leaders,  Mr.  Dingley  in  the  House  and 
Mr.  Aldrich  in  the  Senate,  agreed  that,  owing  to 
''changed  conditions,"  less  protection  was  required  than 
at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  McKinley  bill  in  1890. 
The  Senator  said:  ''The  bitter  contest  that  is  going  on 
among  the  leading  nations  of  the  world  for  industrial 
supremacy  has  brought  about  improvements  in  methods 
and  economy  of  production  to  an  extent  not  thought  pos- 
sible a  few  years  ago."  Is  the  industrial  gain  credited 
to  "protection"  by  this  man  who  has  led  the  protection- 
ists many  years  in  Congress?     No,  to  hitter  contest/' 

AVhat  said  Mr.  Archer  Brown  in  the  Forum  Magazine 
of  November,  1900,  of  this  same  time :  ' '  The  trials  of  the 
lean  years  following  the  panic  forced  economies  of  manu- 
facture and  modernizing  of  plant  to  a  point  that  excited 
the  admiration  and  wonder  of  rivals  of  other  nations." 
Again:  "Let  us  glance  at  the  marvelous  record  of  our 
progress  since  the  uses  of  adversity  taught  us  how  to 
make  the  cheapest  iron  and  steel,  thereby  opening  up  the 
markets  of  the  world. ' ' 

The  Forum  says  of  Mr.  Brown:  "He  has  been  closely 
identified  with  the  movement  for  the  export  of  iron,  and 
has  spent  several  months  in  Europe  stud}dng  conditions 
and  organizing  business  there;  is  director  of  a  number 
of  leading  iron,  steel  and  coal  corporations,  also  director 
of  the  North  American  Trust  Company."  A  man  so 
engaged,  occupying  the  positions  he  did,  should  best 
know  the  facts  of  the  situation. 

The  storv  is  told.  The  little  book  goes  forth  on  its 
mission.  It  is  believed  to  be  the  only  publication  in  the 
world  that  gives  a  comprehensive  view  of  the  bearing  of 


142  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

the  protective  system  upon  the  agricultural  industry.  It 
can  no  longer  be  said  that  the  case  of  the  farmer  against 
the  tariff  has  never  been  formulated.  Here  it  is  made 
evident  that  of  all  men  the  American  farmer  is  the  great- 
est sufferer  by  the  system.  In  comparison  with  the 
injury  done  him,  that  received  by  the  foreigner  is  insig- 
nificant. Here  is  shown  the  cause  of  agricultural  unrest ; 
it  is  the  unprofitableness  of  the  industry,  the  direct  effect 
of  the  protective  system. 

Xow  the  question  is,  can  farmers  be  roused  to  thought 
and  action,  which  means 

CoMMERciAi.  Freedom, 

or  will  they  continue  to  be  led  like  ''dumb-driven  cattle" 
by  those  who  profit  by  their  stupidity,  and  forever 
remain  in 

Commercial  Boxdage! 


The  Tariff  and 
the  Farmer 


By  S.   PAYSON  PERRY 


Condensed,  Popular  Edition 


Copyright,  1908, 

By  s.  payson  perry. 

Worcester,  Mass. 


CONTENTS  OF  LARGER  EDITION. 


Chapter  I. 


Chapter  II. 


Chapter  III. 


Chapter  IV. 


Chapter  V. 


Chapter  VI. 


Chapter  VII. 


Chapter  VIII. 


The  Farmer  Protected  from  Imag- 
inary Danger       -  -  -  9 

The  Agricultural  Masses  Not  Pro- 
tected      -  -  -  -         22 

Less  Foreign  Demand  for  Agri- 
cultural Products  -  -         34 

Less  Foreign  Demand  Intensifies 
Home  Competition  and  Lowers 
Price        -  -  -  -        49 

Confiscation  Rates  of  Duties 
Greatly  Increase  the  Cost  of 
Farmers'  Supplies  -  -         61 

The    Farmer    Subjected  to    Most 

Unfair  Trade  Conditions. 
The    Strong    Trade     Position     of 

Manufacture        -  -  -         70 

The  Same  Continued.  The  De- 
fenseless Trade  Position  of 
Agriculture  -  -  -         87 

Four  Decades  of  Declining  Agri- 
cultural Prosperity  under  High 
Protection. 

The  National  View  -  -         98 


Contents. 


Chaptek  IX. 


Chaptek  X. 


Chapter  XI. 


The  Independent  Farmer  Sinking 
to  the  Position  of  Mere  Tenant       107 


How  the  Farmer  has  Fared  in  the 
Manufacturing  Section  of  the 
Fnion      -  .  -  - 


119 


To  what  are  National  Prosperity 
and  High  Eate  of  Wages  Due  ?       134 


INTRODUCTION. 


How  TO  Make  Country  Life  Moee  Attractive. 

This  is  tlie  question  the  committee  recently  appointed 
by  President  Eoosevelt  has  to  answer. 

Hon.  Emory  Washburn,  a  former  Governor  of  Massa- 
chusetts, said,  ''All  men  speak  well  of  agriculture,  but  all 
who  can  shun  it."  Why?  The  two  chief  indictments 
brought  are  the  isolation  of  the  farmer's  life  and  the 
unprofitableness  of  the  occupation. 

If  those  who  bring  the  first  charge  were  subjected  to  a 
strict  examination,  in  most  cases  we  think  it  would  be 
made  apparent  that  other  objectionable  features  were  in 
combination  with  it  that  would  largely  be  obviated  if 
crops  brought  in  a  plentiful  supply  of  money.  Money 
will  not  buy  everything,  but  a  sufficiency  will  buy  a  great 
variety  of  things  and  add  immensely  to  the  enjoyment  of 
life.  The  isolation  of  the  situation  does  not  stop  men 
from  braving  hardships  and  extreme  peril,  even  risking 
life  itself  in  the  search  for  gold.  Make  it  worth  while  in 
a  financial  way  and  plenty  of  families  will  gladly  face 
the  isolation  of  country  life.  Even  were  it  not  so.  Con- 
gress is  powerless  to  provide  a  remedy. 

Is  it  in  the  power  of  Congress  to  make  the 
pursuit  of  agriculture  more  profitable?  To  a 
certain  extent,  and  in  certain  ways,  it  certainly 
is.  The  industry  has  greatly  suffered  from  the 
fact  that  its  interests   have    not   had   fair    representa- 


6  Introduction. 

tion  at  Washington.  There  the  farmer  is  conspicuous 
by  his  absence.  Advantage  has  been  taken  of  this,  and 
laws  passed  most  injurious  to  his  interests.  For  this 
our  agricultural  leaders  are  responsible.  They  have 
always  assumed  that  all  that  was  necessary  to  make  the 
industry  prosperous  was  a  scientific  knowledge  of  pro- 
duction. President  Eoosevelt  truly  says,  ''Our  atten- 
tion has  been  concentrated  almost  exclusively  on  getting 
better  farming."  ''We  hope  ultimately  to  double  the 
average  yield  of  wheat  and  corn  per  acre  .  .  .  but  it 
is  even  more  important  to  double  the  desirability,  com- 
fort and  standing  of  the  farmer's  life.'' 

The  President  sees  what  apparently  our  agricultural 
leaders  have  never  perceived,  that  doubling  the  ^deld  per 
acre,  in  other  words  "getting  better  farming,"  does  not 
necessarily  greatly  benefit  the  farmer.  The  one  surely 
benefited  is  the  consumer  of  such  products.  For  the 
result  may  be  so  large  a  surplus  that  the  money  return 
per  acre  will  be  less  than  before.  To  benefit  the  farmer 
the  crop  grown  on  an  acre  must  command  a  larger  sup- 
ply of  tuhat  the  farmer  buys. 

Now  the  farmer  is  a  large  purchaser  of  manufactured 
products,  and  in  the  exchange  that  takes  place  between 
the  individuals  of  the  two  industries,  legislative  enact- 
ments have  a  most  important  bearing.  Chief  of  the  laws 
having  such  a  bearing  is  the  tariff  system.  As  most  per- 
sons well  informed  concerning  foreign  trade  know,  the 
laws  relating  to  the  tariff  are  practically  made  by  our 
manufacturers.  It  is  the  object  of  this  little  book  to 
show  that  the  effect  of  these  laws  is  to  greatly  lessen  the 
exchange  value  of  farmers'  products.  A  repeal  of  these 
laws,  or,  if  that  is  asking  too  much,  a  large  reduction  in 
rates  of  duties  on  articles  imported  which  are  similar  to 


Introduction.  i 

those  purchased  hy  our  farmers  would  much  increase 
the  profits  of  agriculture. 

Of  all  occupations,  that  of  the  farmer's  is  poorest  paid. 
(For  reasons  why,  see  chapters  VI  and  VII.)  The 
United  Sta'tes  census  of  1900  indicates  that,  subtracting 
from  gross  income  there  given,  business  expenses  and 
interest  upon  capital  of  four  per  cent.,  the  net  income 
received  from  the  labor  of  the  average  farmer  and  his 
family  is  only  about  $400.  The  Labor  Bureaus  of  Sta- 
tistics in  Massachusetts  and  at  Washington  indicate  that 
the  wages  of  the  average  workman  and  his  family 
engaged  in  manufacture  are  near  twice  this  sum,  or 
about  $800  per  annum. 

Since  1900  there  is  evidence  going  to  show  that  farm- 
ers at  the  West  are  obtaining  better  prices  for  their  prod- 
ucts. But  little,  if  any,  improvement  has  taken  place  in 
the  condition  of  the  Eastern  farmer.  It  is  even  very 
doubtful  if  he  is  as  well  off  as  before,  since  there  has  been 
a  general  rise  in  cost  of  business  and  family  supplies. 

This  book  is  a  part  of  a  much  larger  work,  to  which 
the  author  has  devoted  many  years  of  research  and 
thought.  It  is  believed  to  be  the  only  publication  in 
existence  that  gives  a  comprehensive  view  of  the  bearing 
of  the  tariff  upon  agricultural  interests.  The  author  is 
a  life-long  farmer — for  many  years  a  good  Republican — 
made  an  independent  by  a  study  of  the  tariff  question. 
In  doing  this  work  he  has  been  actuated  by  as  purely 
patriotic  motives  as  when  he  shouldered  a  rifle  in  the 
dark  days  of  1862. 

He  is  well  aware  that  many  persons  consider  the  tariff 
question  as  settled,  but  ''nothing  is  ever  settled  that  is 
not  settled  right."  To  believe  that  the  present  system  of 
wrong  and  gross  oppression  will  always  continue  is  to 


8  Introduction. 

doubt  the  existence  of  a  just  Grod.  Conditions  have 
remained  much  the  same  for  more  than  forty  years, 
because  the  class,  blinded  by  party  leaders,  has  never 
given  it  consideration.  The  indications  now  are  that  the 
time  is  near  when  the  subject  will  be  taken  up  and  the 
other  side  of  the  tariff  question  will  be  heard.  No  change 
is  likely  to  come  until  the  agricultural  masses  demand  it ; 
for  it  is  true  now,  as  ever,  that  ^ '  they  who  would  be  free 
themselves  must  strike  the  blow. ' ' 


THE  TARIFF  AND  THE  FARMER. 


Eeview  and  Summaky  of  the  Larger  Edition. 

'^In  most  ages  the  working  farmer  has  been  the  dupe 
and  prey  of  the  rest  of  mankind.  Now  by  force  and  now 
by  cajolery,  as  social  customs  and  political  institutions 
change,  he  has  been  made  to  produce  the  food  by  which 
the  race  lives,  and  the  share  of  his  products,  which  he  has 
been  permitted  to  keep  for  himself,  has  always  been  piti- 
fully small.  Whether  Eoman  slave,  Frankish  serf,  or 
English  villain;  whether  the  independent  farmer  of  a 
free  democracy,  or  the  ryot  of  a  Hindu  prince,  the  gen- 
eral rule  holds  good."^ 

In  chapter  I  is  shown  how  attempts  were  made  to  dupe 
the  ' '  independent  farmer  of  a  free  democracy. ' ' 

In  1890  the  total  value  of  our  surplus  agricultural 
products  sent  abroad  was  $629,000,000;  in  the  previous 
year,  1889,  $532,000,000.  Of  the  latter,  $22,585,000  went 
to  Canada.  In  return,  that  country  sent  us  not  quite 
$20,000,000  of  agricultural  products.  Most  persons 
would  say  that  we  were  getting  the  best  end  of  the  bar- 
gain. But  a  new  tariff  bill  was  being  considered  in  Con- 
gress, and  the  managers  of  it  wished  to  secure  the  sup- 
port of  the  agricultural  vote.  So  it  remained  for  Mr. 
Dingley  to  make  the  remarkable  discovery  that  the  prod- 
ucts coming  in  over  the  border  were  ^ '  disastrously ' '  com- 


^  W.  J.  Ghent,  in  ''Our  Benevolent  Feudalism,"  page  47. 


10  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

peting  with  those  sold  by  our  farmers.  To  remedy  this 
duties  were  increased  from  50  to  100%  on  products  for 
which  there  was  no  evidence  in  United  States  annual 
reports  of  commerce  and  navigation  that  any  was  being 
imported.  The  rate  of  duties  on  wheat  was  advanced 
when  we  were  sending  to  all  nations  in  1889  to  the  value 
of  $96,000,000,  and  getting  back  only  $125,000.  Scarcely 
any  meat  and  dairy  products  came  from  Canada,  and  we 
exported  there  that  year  $7,000,000  worth,  yet  the  inva- 
sion seemed  so  alarming  that  the  rates  on  butter  and 
cheese  were  raised  50%,  and  those  on  ham  and  bacon 
200%.  The  same  year  hog  products  were  sent  abroad 
to  the  value  of  $66,000,000,  and  the  total  value  sent  in 
was  but  $172,000. 

On  the  same  occasion  Mr.  McKinley  had  visions  of  our 
wheat  driven  from  foreign  markets.  He  also  made  a 
remarkable  discovery,  which  was  that  ''the  time  was 
already  here  when  the  American  farmer  must  sell  his 
products  in  the  market  of  the  world  in  competition  with 
the  wheat  produced  by  the  lowest  priced  labor  of  other 
countries."  That  is  what  the  American  farmer  has 
always  done.  He  feared  a  great  flood  of  wheat  from 
nations  he  named,  some  of  whom  had  not  enough  to  feed 
their  own  people.  He  told  the  many  million  bushels  of 
wheat  raised  by  different  countries,  but  forgot  to  men- 
tion the  material  fact,  which  was  the  amount  of  surplus. 
That  would  have  put  an  entirely  different  face  on  the 
matter. 

The  next  phantom  brought  to  view  in  the  opening  chap- 
ter was  conjured  up  by  Secretary  Shaw  of  President 
Roosevelt's  Cabinet.  Probably  he  could  not  sleep  nights 
for  fear  of  a  cattle  invasion.  "Suppose  we  take  the 
tariff  off  beef,  and  then  suppose  the  herds  of  cattle  from 


The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer.  11 

Mexico  and  South  America  are  brought  in  here  by  the 
hundred  thousand.  It  might  ruin  the  farmers."  ''The 
farmer  as  it  is  has  ample  reason  to  be  apprehensive." 

As  it  is,  under  the  present  rates  of  duties,  in  1906  the 
imports  of  meat  and  meat  extracts  from  the  countries 
mentioned  were  less  than  $55,000.  The  value  of  cattle 
imported  from  Mexico  was  $316,000,  and  none  whatever 
from  Argentina. 

Of  all  South  America  only  Argentina  is  in  position  to 
compete  with  our  farmers  to  any  extent  even  under  con- 
ditions of  free  trade.  That  republic  has  a  very  large 
number  of  cattle.  The  first  obstacle  in  the  way  of  bring- 
^ing  them  here  is  a  long  sea  voyage  of  from  6000  to  8000 
miles  across  the  stormy  equatorial  regions.  Many  would 
die  on  the  passage,  and  those  who  lived  through  would 
be  in  no  condition  for  the  butcher.  They  would  have  to 
be  refitted. 

Why,  too,  would  these  be  unloaded  at  the  doors  of  the 
United  States  when  prices  are  so  much  better  in  Great 
Britain  that  our  shippers  can  afford  to  send  there  $35,- 
000,000  worth  of  cattle,  as  they  did  in  1901  ? 

Then,  too,  whether  cattle  or  meat,  the  competition  of 
Argentina  must  be  met  either  in  the  United  States  or 
Great  Britain.  If  met  in  the  latter  country,  the  less  we 
supply  there  the  larger  the  number  left  in  our  home  mar- 
ket.    So  it  makes  little  difference ;  the  result  is  the  same. 

For  some  good  reason,  no  doubt,  the  export  trade  of 
Argentina  is  mostly  made  up  of  wool,  hides  and  skins, 
and  mutton;  only  to  a  far  smaller  extent  of  cattle  and 

meat. 

There  is  still  Mexico  to  consider.  What  is  the  proba- 
bility of  our  being  overwhelmed  by  cattle  and  meat 
invasion  from  there  under  free  trade!     Before  serious 


12  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

competition  can  come  from  this  quarter  the  country  must 
be  cleared  of  noxious  reptiles  and  animals ;  water  be  pro- 
vided at  an  immense  expense  for  the  stock;  the  cattle 
changed  for  a  larger  breed;  and  in  place  of  millions  of 
ignorant,  indolent  Indians  and  half-breeds  steeped  in 
j)overty,  there  must  be  men  of  a  totally  different  stamp 
and  education,  rich  enough  to  provide  themselves  with 
the  essentials  of  civilization.  Is  this  change  likely  to^ 
come  in  our  dav? 

We  now  pass  from  the  consideration  of  spectres 
created  by  the  lively  imagination  of  politicians  to  a  direct 
and  full  exposure  of  the  fraudulent  claim  that  the  farmer 
is  protected  (see  chapter  II). 

When  the  Mills  tariif  was  being  discussed  in  the  House 
in  1888,  Mr.  McKinley  asked  this  ciuestion,  ''Do  the  agri- 
culturists want  all  duties  removed  and  their  products 
driven  from  this  market?"  A  brief  examination  of  our 
agricultural  foreign  trade  for  any  year  would  show  the 
absurdity  of  this  question. 

In  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1900,  the  value  of 
agricultural  imports  was  twice  that  of  1887,  the  year 
quoted  by  Mr.  McKinley.  If  there  had  been  danger  then 
of  our  products  being  driven  from  our  home  market 
under  free  trade,  much  more  so  in  the  later  year. 

The  total  value  of  agricultural  imports  as  given  by  the 
Year  Book  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture  for  1900 
was  $-1:20,139,288.  Before  proceeding  to  a  classification  of 
these  products  we  note  articles  to  the  value  of  5.71%  of 
total  that  are  clearly  manufactured  products.  These  are 
set  one  side..  The  remainder  we  divide  into  three 
classes : 

Class  1.  Non-competing  Products.  These  are  not 
produced  to    any  considerable  extent    by  our    farmers. 


The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer.  13 

Chief  of  these  are  coffee,  raw  silk,  goat  skins,  jute  and 
sisal  grasses  and  tea.  Total  value,  $177,602,000,  or 
42.28%.     Nearly  all  are  on  the  free  list. 

Class  2.  Protected.  That  is,  products  similar  to  those 
produced  by  our  farmers  that  are  effectively  protected. 
These  include  raw  sugar  material,  wool,  tobacco,  semi- 
tropical  products,  and  rice.  Their  value  in  1899,  includ- 
ing lambs  dropped  that  year,  was  only  about  4%  of  total 
agricultural  production.  There  is  no  dispute  but  those 
engaged  in  these  lines  of  husbandry  are  protected.  But 
what  sort  of  protection  is  this  for  the  farmers  engaged  in 
producing  the  96%?  Because  45%  duties  are  levied  on 
wool,  and  still  higher  rates  on  raw  sugar  material  when 
imported,  every  family  of  the  agricultural  community 
has  to  pay  more  for  clothing  and  the  sugar  it  eats. 
Also  the  food  and  clothing  of  all  persons  not  engaged  in 
farming  are  increased  in  price,  which  causes  a  rise  in 
wages  of  those  who  handle  farmers'  supplies.  Where  is 
there  any  compensation  to  the  agricultural  masses  for 
the  extra  gain  made  by  the  4%  fraction! 

About  83%  of  the  $420,000,000  value  has  now  been  con- 
sidered, and  Uncle  Sam's  system  so  far  has  resulted  only 
in  increasing  the  farmer's  taxes.  The  value  of  the 
importations  of  Class  2  was  $146,908,000,  or  34.97%. 

Class  3.  Unprotected.  These  imports,  as  far  as 
they  go,  are  similar  to  those  produced  by  those  repre- 
sented by  the  96%.  We  call  these  unprotected,  though 
nominal  duties  are  levied  on  nearly  every  agricultural 
product  similar  to  those  produced  here,  when  imported, 
with  the  exception  of  cotton.  The  value  of  this  class  of 
imports  was  but  $71,612,000,  and  of  this  amount  $32,853,- 
000  was  on  the  free  list.  Of  the  $38,759,000  that  was 
dutied  $19,408,000  consisted  of  hides.     The  value  of  live 


14  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

animals  imported  (not  including  sheep),  of  breads  tuffs 
(includes  all  grain  brought  in),  of  meats,  dairy  products 
and  vegetables  was  only  about  $10,000,000. 

Here  we  have  protection  to  the  agricultural  masses 
brought  down  to  about  the  vanishing  point.  Now  it  will 
be  claimed  that  the  reason  why  so  small  a  value  of  com- 
peting agricultural  products  is  imported  is  that  these 
are  kei3t  out  by  the  tariff.  But  this  claim  is  knocked  into 
smithers  when  answer  is  made  that  the  products  named 
above,  imported  only  to  the  value  of  $10,000,000,  were 
exported  the  same  year  to  the  extent  of  $492,000,000. 
When  competition  is  successfully  met  way  beyond  where 
tariff  bars  have  any  effect,  how  absurd  sounds  the  ques- 
tion of  Mr.  McKinley,  ^'Do  the  agriculturists  want  all 
duties  removed  and  their  products  driven  from  this  mar- 
ket?" The  agricultural  masses  will  suffer  no  harm  if 
given  the  freest  trade.     No  protection  is  given  them. 

We  have  next  to  consider  the  effect  of  protection  on  the 
exportation  of  agricultural  products  (see  chapter  III). 

In  the  famous  report  of  Secretary  Walker  made  in 
1845  it  is  asserted  that  ''the  farmer  and  the  planter  are 
deprived  to  a  great  extent  of  the  foreign  market  by  those 
duties. ' '  The  high  protective  duties  of  the  tariff  of  1842 
are  referred  to. 

This  position  of  Mr.  Walker  is  combated  by  Mr.  Stan- 
wood  in  his  recently  written  book  on  tariff  controversies, 
who  adds  in  his  closing  remarks,  ''If  this  view  of  the 
subject  is  accepted,  it  follows  that  the  tariff  affected  in 
no  way  the  amount  of  American  produce  which  could  be 
or  was  sold  abroad."  We  understand  Mr.  Stanwood 
takes  this  view  of  high  protective  duties  generally.  Now 
to  come  to  such  an  opinion  as  this  is  to  ignore  the  report 
of  the  agricultural  export  trade.     Especially  does  this 


The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer,  15 

view  appear  false  when  the  gain  made  in  exports  from 
1846-60,  under  low  duties,  is  contrasted  with  that  made 
from  1880-97  with  high  duties.  The  starting-point,  1880, 
is  taken  as  being  about  the  time  when  retaliatory  tariffs 
began  to  affect  our  export  trade. 

The  percentage  of  gain  in  the  former  shorter  time  was 
210%.  At  this  time  most  exportations,  about  four-fifths, 
consisted  of  agricultural  products.  In  1880  the  value  of 
agricultural  exports  was  $685,000,000.  The  average  of 
^ye  years  before  and  after  this  date  was  $620,000,000.  In 
1897  the  value  was  $683,000,000;  the  average  of  five 
/ears  before  and  after,  $641,000,000.  The  percentage  of 
gain  of  one  five-year  period  over  the  other  was  not  4%. 
After  1897  the  percentage  of  gain  was  much  more,  but 
still  from  this  date  to  1906  inclusive  was  but  67.  From 
1880-1906  the  gain  in  agricultural  exports  was  but  54% ; 
in  fourteen  years  of  low  duties  a  gain  of  210%;  in 
twenty-six  of  the  highest  duties  but  54%. 

Looking  at  the  matter  from  a  common-sense  stand- 
point, it  is  impossible  to  believe  but  that  high  protective 
duties  have  decreased  the  flow  of  agricultural  products 
abroad  to  a  large  extent.  The  example  of  the  United 
States  has  been  followed  by  other  nations,  with  the 
exception  of  Great  Britain.  The  great  increase  in  rates 
of  duties  imposed  upon  our  exports  in  those  countries 
could  not  fail  to  shut  them  out  in  whole  or  in  part,  for 
the  larger  part  of  this  merchandise  consisted  of  agricul- 
tural products. 

After  referring  to  the  time  when  various  nations 
increased  rates  of  duties,  Mr.  David  A.  Wells,  in  his  book, 
''Eecent  Economic  Changes,"  says:  ''There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  objective  of  much  of  the  restrictive  com- 
mercial legislation  of  other  countries  in  recent  years  has 


16  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

been  the  United  States,  a  policy  which  has  notably 
affected  the  agricultural  supremacy  of  the  latter  country 
in  the  world 's  market. '  ^ 

By  referring  to  chapter  III  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
little  free  trade  nation  of  Great  Britain  takes  much  more 
than  half  of  all  our  agricultural  products,  which  goes  far 
to  confirm  the  assertion  that  were  the  ports  of  all  nations 
equally  open  to  us,  there  would  be  a  vast  increase  in  value 
of  agricultural  exports.  The  American  policy  has  sent 
the  European  workmen  into  the  fields  instead  of  into  the 
shops;  it  has  tended  to  develop  other  agricultural 
nations  at  the  expense  of  our  farmers. 

This  brings  us  to  the  inquiry  of  the  effect  upon  agri- 
culture of  a  greatly  restricted  market  (see  chapter  IV). 

The  number  of  farms  in  the  United  St^ites  in  1850  was 
1,449,073;  in  1860,  2,044,077;  in  1900,  the  number  had 
risen  to  5,739,657.  From  1860-1900  the  average  annual 
increase  was  over  92,000  farms.  This  great  increase 
came  primarily  from  the  opening  up  of  the  country  by 
the  railroad  system.  But  it  was  greatly  hastened  by  the 
policy  adopted  by  Congress  of  giving  away  farms. 

With  such  a  tremendous  development  taking  place, 
largely  due  to  the  action  of  Congress,  it  would  seem  to  be 
incumbent  upon  that  body  to  do  everything  possible  to 
open  out  avenues  of  trade  in  foreign  lands,  and  thus  vvo- 
tect  the  agricultural  interests  from  the  evil  effect  of  an 
ever-increasing  surplus.  Instead  of  this,  legislation  was 
enacted  that  well  might  have  closed  every  foreign  door 
to  our  products.  Instead  of  rendering  aid  to  farmers 
whose  home  market  was  flooded  with  western  products, 
Congress  did  what  it  could  to  make  the  position  more 
difficult.  Had  manufacturers  been  in  the  place  of  farm- 
ers, there  would  have  been  no  protective  duties,  but  the 


The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer.  17 

freest  trade.     Neither  would  Congress  have  been  per- 
mitted to  give  away  farms. 

The  ever-increasing  agricultural  surplus  caused  a  con- 
tinuous fall  in  prices  from  the  close  of  the  great  war  to 
1897,  inclusive.  Price  went  far  below  what  it  was  before 
the  great  war.  The  fall  was  so  great  that  with  any  other 
industry  the  result  would  have  been  universal  bank- 
ruptcy. 

We  note  now  the  views  commonly  held  as  to  the  power- 
ful influence  a  surplus  has  upon  price.  Mr.  John  P. 
Young,  long  managing  editor  of  the  San  Francisco 
Chronicle,  said  that  American  manufacturers  ^'learned 
the  bitter  lesson  that  the  surplus,  when  dumped  on  the 
domestic  market,  fixed  the  price  without  reference  to  the 
cost  of  the  product."  ''The  idea  is  now  generally  enter- 
tained by  workingmen  in  the  United  States,  and  it  is 
shared  by  those  of  Germany,  that  excessive  competition 
in  the  home  market  is  destructive  to  home  industry." 

Senator  Beveridge  speaks  of  the  ' '  sale  of  our  surplus 
upon  which  our  whole  prosperity  depends." 

Senator  Hoar's  words  are:  "A  prosperous  manufac- 
turing country  that  sends  its  products  abroad  will 
always,  if  it  is  to  remain  prosperous,  get  higher  prices 
for  its  products  at  home  than  it  does  abroad.  In  other 
words,  it  dumps  its  surplus  in  foreign  markets." 

The  effect  of  disposing  of  a  surplus  in  the  home  mar- 
ket is  indicated  in  these  words  of  Mr.  David  A.  Wells : 
' '  If  production  exceeds  by  even  a  very  small  percentage 
what  is  required  to  meet  every  current  demand  for  con- 
sumption, the  price  which  the  surplus  will  command  in 
the  open  market  will  govern  and  control  the  price  of  the 
whole ;  and  if  it  cannot  be  sold  at  all,  or  with  difficulty,  an 
intense  competition  on  the  part   of   the   owners    of   the 


18  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

accumulated  stocks  to  sellwill  be  engendered,  with,  a 
great  reduction  or  annihilation  of  all  profit. ' ' 

So  intense  has  been  the  desire  to  sell  with  American 
farmers  that  they  are  competing  to  an  immense  value 
with  the  poorest  paid  ''pauper  labor  of  Europe." 

It  is  now  time  to  consider  the  effect  of  high  protective 
duties  on  the  farmers. 

The  agricultural  community  annually  purchases  man- 
ufactures to  a  vast  value,  probably  nearly  $2,000,000,000 
worth  of  products,  usually  entered  by  the  census  reports 
under  the  head  of  manufactures.  These  consist  chiefly 
of  clothing,  the  many  articles  comprised  under  the  word 
furniture,  /ill  the  machinery  and  tools,  large  or  small, 
required  to  carry  on  a  farm ;  articles  of  food  more  or  less 
changed  for  the  consumption  of  man  or  beast,  and  the 
buildings  necessary  to  shelter  the  family  and  live  stock. 
As  most  of  all  this  is  manufactured  in  this  countrv  what 
has  the  tariff  to  do  with  it  ?  Under  free  trade  the  price 
of  a  large  part  of  the  products  indicated  was  regulated 
by  outside  supply.  A  rise  in  price  was  likely  to  be  fol- 
lowed by  an  increase  in  imj)ortations,  a  fall  in  price  by  a 
decrease  of  imports.  The  tariff  interfered  with  this 
self -regulating  arrangement,  either  by  shutting  out  or 
largely  increasing  the  price  where  the  article  came  in. 
Our  home  producers  then  came  into  absolute  control  of 
the  American  market,  as  claimed  bv  President  Dolan  of 
the  Manufacturers'  National  Association  (see  chap- 
ter VI).      • 

Under  ordinary  conditions  this  might  work  no  injus- 
tice, but  for  the  last  twentv  or  thirtv  vears  conditions 
have  been  unusual  and  extraordinarv. 

The  manufacturing  industry  in  the  United  States  is 
divided  into  at  least  from  300  to  400  distinct  groups.    In 


The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer.  19 

most  cases  only  the  individuals  of  the  same  group  are 
in  competition  with  each  other  for  the  same  product. 
Now  instead  of  these  competing  with  each  other  for  the 
trade,  it  is  more  and  more  becoming  the  custom  to  estab- 
lish a  standard  price,  subject  to  some  variations.  While 
price  is  based  upon  cost,  which  includes  fair  profit  for 
service  performed,  it  by  no  means  stops  at  that  level ;  it 
is  carried  up  as  high  as  it  is  thought  the  traffic  will  bear. 
With  foreign  competition  shut  out,  and  themselves  sole 
judges  of  what  the  price  shall  be,  no  one  who  knows 
human  nature  would  expect  an  exhibition  of  fairness  or 
moderation.  Each  group  has  a  monopoly  in  its  line, 
and  each  is  eager  to  make  the  most  of  it.  With  irrespon- 
sible agents,  all  seeking  to  become  quickly  rich,  in  the 
place  of  the  self -regulating  method  of  free  trade  no  one 
can  doubt  but  that  farmers'  supplies  will  be  and  have 
been  greatly  increased  in  price.  That  this  is  the  result 
is  the  opinion  of  men  of  prominence  (see  chapter  V). 
Mr.  Mulhall,  a  noted  English  statistician,  gives  it  as  his 
opinion  that  '^the  value  of  American  manufactures  is 
artificially  raised  by  protective  tariffs  fully  33%  over 
the  real  value. ' ' 

Governor  Cummins  of  Iowa  expresses  the  belief  that 
tin  plate,  steel  rails,  barbed  wire  and  kindred  articles 
are  made  about  100%  too  high  by  tariff  monopoly. 

Ex-senator  Washburn  of  Minneapolis  speaks  of  indus- 
tries that,  ''sheltered  as  they  are  by  the  Dingley  tariif, 
make  profits  of  from  25  to  100%."  He  speaks,  too,  of 
''the  enormous  prices  of  barbed  wire,  lumber,  glass,  steel 
rails  and  paper." 

Ex-governor  William  L.  Douglas  of  Massachusetts, 
one  of  the  largest  shoe  manufacturers  in  the  United 
States,  thinks  of  the  tariff  tax   that  where  "$16.52  per 


20  The  Tariff  and  ike  Farmer. 

family  went  to  the  government,  over  $94  went  to  the 
trusts  and  other  protected  interests." 

The  evidence  of  Mr.  H.  E.  Miles,  president  of  the 
National  Association  of  Implements  and  Vehicle  Man- 
ufacturers (see  chapter  VI),  a  protected  manufacturer, 
is  directly  to  the  point;  he  knows  what  he  is  talking 
about,  for  he  is  in  the  game  himself.  He  starts  off  with 
the  frank  admission,  ''I  have  made  money  every  year  out 
of  the  tariff  graft."  He  goes  on  to  say,  "Under  this 
tariff  those  who  supply  the  factories  I  am  interested  in 
with  their  material  have  consolidated  or  formed  trusts, 
and  have  raised  the  prices  25  to  50%.  All  those  years  I 
have,  as  before,  made  my  sale  price  on  a  percentage  of 
costs,  and  when  the  tariff  pets  raised  their  prices,  as 
they  did  $50,000  to  me,  I  made  the  charge  against  the 
jobber  $60,000,  and  I  know  beyond  question  that  he  also 
figured  on  a  percentage  basis  and  charged  more  than 
$70,000  for  the  $60,000  he  paid  me.  The  product  went 
through  one  or  two  other  hands  before  reaching  the  con- 
sumer. The  $50,000  I  paid  became  about  $100,000  to  the 
agriciiUnral  consumer.' ' 

It  is  the  United  States  government  that  sustains  a  sys- 
tem under  which  such  oppressive  transactions  are  per- 
mitted and  made  possible. 

Now  while  the  protective  system  is  the  chief  cause  of 
agricultural  unprofitableness,  there  are  still  other  cir- 
cumstances that  put  the  farmer  to  a  disadvantage  in  the 
warfare  of  business.  His  trade  position  throughout  is 
weak  and  defenseless  (see  chapters  VI  and  VII).  This 
we  shall  proceed  to  show  by  the  use  of  what  has  been 
called  ' '  the  deadly  parallel  column. ' ' 


The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 


21 


The  Adverse  Trade  Position  of  Agriculture. 

(1860-1900.) 

Manufacture.  Agriculture. 

Market  Conditions. 


Most  favor  able. 

Due  to  the  great  demand  of 
a  rapidly  growing  nation 
for  transportation  sup- 
plies, for  buildings,  for 
farm  and  manufacturing 
machinery,  and  for  prod- 
ucts required  for  dispatch 
of  business  and  supply  the 
many  wants  of  civilization. 


Most  imfavorahle. 

Due  to  the  rapid  develop- 
ment of  the  west  and  south- 
west by  the  railroad  system, 
whereby  92,000  new  farms 
annually  increased  the  ever- 
growing surplus  of  such 
products. 


Can  he  ascertained. 

Expense  in  terms  of 
lars  and  cents. 


dol- 


The  effect. 

(1)  Price  is  held  to  the 
level  of  cost. 

(2)  When  cost  increases, 
the  prices  of  products  rise 
in  equal  measure.  Busi- 
ness floats  safely  on  the 
rising  tide. 


Cost  of  Production. 

Cannot  he  ascertained. 

Cost  dependent  on  articles 
of  indetinite  value  pro- 
duced on  the  farm. 

The  effect. 

(1)  Blind  competition — 
price  driven  to  the  lowest 
level. 

(2)  When  cost  increases, 
there  is  no  connecting  auto- 
matic device  to  cause  an 
equal  rise  in  the  value  of 
products.  If  supply  is 
large  to  demand,  price  may 
fall  in  the  face  of  advanc- 
ing cost. 


22 


The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 


CoNTKOL  OF  Supply. 

Various   devices   for  regu-     No  control  whatever, 
lating  supply  to  demand. 


Method  of  Sale. 


Practically  a  one-price  sys- 
tem, with  price  advanced 
as  high  as  the  market  will 
bear. 


Every  kind  of  price  fixed 
in  each  market  by  chance 
and  degree  of  competition. 


How  Pkice  is  Held  at  a  High  Aetificial  Level. 


(1)  By  associated  effort 
destructive  to  home  compe- 
tition. 

(2)  By  the  interference  of 
the  national  government 
which  prevents  foreign 
competition. 


(1)  No  associated   effort — 
in  no  way  held  up. 

(2)  No   aid   received  from 
the  national  government. 


The  Position  fok  Associated  Effokt. 


Ideal.  (1)  Divided  into 
hundreds  of  groups,  with 
competition  confined  to 
those  of  the  same  group. 
(2)  The  groups  centrally 
located,  individuals  in  touch 
with  each  other  by  the  use 
of  modern  facilities,  and  by 
printed  price-lists. 


Impossible.  (1)  No  divi- 
sion into  non-competing 
groups. 

(2)  Completely  isolated 
from  each  other,  and  scat- 
tered all  over  the  nation. 


The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 


23 


(3)  Not  easy  to  pass  from 
one  trade  to  another,  ma- 
chinery different,  and  much 
time  required  to  gain  skill 
in  practice  and  learn  mar- 
ket condition  of  new  trade. 


(3)  Easy  to  pass  from  one 
branch  to  another.  Mil- 
lions of  farms  with  such 
similarity  of  climate,  soil 
and  farm  machinery  that 
manv  diiferent  kinds  of 
products  can  be  grown  with 
equal  facility. 


The  Patent  System. 


This  and  the  abuse  of  the 
system  a  great  aid  in  hold- 
ing price  to  a  high  level  by 
private  monopoly. 


Is  not  applicable. 


The  Protective  System. 


Trust  and  group  monopoly 
protected  from  foreign 
competition  by  prohibitory 
taxes. 


The  pretence  of  protection 
here  mere  humbug  and 
hypocrisy.  There  is  undis- 
putable  proof  of  no  protec- 
tion. Per  contrary,  the 
value  of  products  is  depre- 
ciated, and  the  cost  of  sup- 
plies greatly  increased. 


For  a  long  time  even  among  farmers  it  has  been  a  dis- 
puted point  as  to  whether  or  not  farming  was  profitable. 
Officials  of  all  kinds  any  way  connected  with  agricultural 
educational  boards  have  loudly  affirmed  that  it  paid;  a 
natural  view  to  take  when  these  know  they  will  be  held 
partly  responsible  for  adverse  conditions,  or  when  these 
are  inspired  by  those  who  make  or  break  them.     Those 


24  The  Tariff  and.  the  Farmer. 

on  both  sides,  so  far  as  observation  has  gone,  reason 
from  a  biased  standpoint,  or  from  very  limited  and  utter- 
Iv  insufficient  data.  The  basis  on  which  some  form  an 
opinion  is  how  it  fared  with  a  few  well-known  individ- 
uals, or  with  the  farmers  of  the  countv  in  which  thev 
resided.  If,  by  close  economy,  these  manage  to  pay 
considerably  more  than  their  bills,  some  seem  to  regard 
this  as  a  prosperous  condition. 

For  a  settlement  of  the  question  a  national  view  is 
essential.  The  condition  of  the  class  as  a  whole  must  be 
taken  into  consideration.  Nor  is  this  sufficient.  The  field 
of  observation  must  be  extended  to  other  industrial 
classes,  and  comparisons  made  as  to  how  labor  and  capi- 
tal are  paid  in  them,  and  the  degree  in  which  wealth  has 
accumulated  there. 

A  careful  investigation  has  been  made  along  these 
lines,  and  the  evidence  is  now  before  us.  So  clear  and 
unmistakable  is  this  that  the  above  question  may  be 
regarded  as  forever  settled.  Not  only  has  it  been  made 
evident  that  farming  did  not  pay,  but  the  direct  cause  of 
such  unprofitableness  is  pointed  out.  The  search  into 
the  agricultural  situation  has  covered  a  wide  field.  It 
now  remains  to  bring  together  and  focus  the  bearing  of 
the  more  important  features  developed. 

The  Evidence  of  Agricultural  Unprofitableness  Under 

THE  Protective  System. 

(a)  The  deplorable  tenure  of  farm  possession  (see 
chapter  IX). 

In  the  national  campaign  of  1900  Republican  orators 
and  papers  asserted  that  farmers  had  been  so  prosperous 
under  the  administration    of    President    McKinley  that 


The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer.  25 

mortgages  on  farms  had  been  largely  wiped  out.  That 
was  talk  for  political  effect.  When  the  census  report  of 
1900  came  to  hand,  a  year  or  two  later,  taken  and  made 
up  by  Republican  officials,  it  was  seen  that  a  vast  num- 
ber of  farms  were  either  mortgaged  or  hired.  The  total 
number  of  farms  was  given  as  5,698,901.  Of  these  about 
3,643,684  were  owned  by  those  who  tilled  them,  but  1,094,- 
573  were  mortgaged,  something  less  than  a  third.  Either 
to  defeat  comparison,  or  some  other  unknown  reason,  the 
returns  for  1900  were  put  in  such  a  way  that  it  could  not 
be  ascertained  whether  or  not  there  had  been  an  increase 
in  the  number  of  mortgaged  farms. 

The  number  of  hired  farms  was  2,013,903.  That  is, 
more  than  half  the  farms  in  the  United  States  were,  by 
the  census  returns  of  1900,  shown  to  be  either  mortgaged 
or  hired.  Of  hired  farms  there  had  been  an  increase  in 
twentv  vears,  1880-1900,  of  97%,  against  an  increase  in 
ownership  of  24%.  At  that  rate  of  increase  in  forty 
years  more,  tenant  farming  or  landlordism  would  be  well 
nigh  universal.     Few  men  would  then  own  the  land  they 

tilled. 

But  it  is  in  the  older  portions  of  the  Union,  where 
cheap  new  land  with  its  virgin  fertility  has  not  obscured 
the  situation,  that  the  trend  of  the  times  is  most  surely 
indicated.  In  the  North  Atlantic  section  there  has  been 
an  actual  loss  in  ownership  of  farms  by  those  who  tilled 
them  of  eight  per  cent.,  and  of  those  who  owned  the 
farms  they  tilled  thirty-eight  per  cent,  were  mortgaged. 
In  the  same  twenty  years  there  has  been  an  increase 
in  hired  farms  of  twenty-six  per  cent.  Now  what  is 
the  significance  of  a  great  number  of  mortgaged  farms 
and  the  rapid  increase  of  hired  farms  f  If  the  business 
was  profitable  why  should  not  the  man  who  hired  a  farm 


26  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

be  able  in  a  few  years  to  pay  down  the  small  part  usually 
required  to  purchase  on  mortgage?  He  would  naturally 
desire  to  do  so  to  have  a  permanent  home,  and  secure  to 
himself  the  improvements  he  made.  After  giving  a  mort- 
gage fifteen  or  twenty  years  should  see  the  man  free 
from  debt.  But  here  in  these  old  settled  states,  where 
farms  rarely  change  owners,  after  the  lapse  of  a  hun- 
dred years  the  profits  are  so  small  that  the  owners  are 
getting  rid  of  them  either  by  leasing,  selling,  or,  where 
this  is  impossible,  by  abandoning  them.  The  process 
known  as  ' '  skinning ' '  is  under  full  swing,  where  the  man 
in  transient  possession  by  lease  robs  the  farm  of  its  fer- 
tility, giving  back  nothing  or  little. 

(b)  The  almost  imperceptible  gain  in  total  annual 
value  of  agricultural  products  against  most  surprising 
manufacturing  gains  (see  chapter  VIII). 

The  amount  of  capital  invested  in  agriculture  has 
increased  four-fold  since  1850;  the  number  of  farjns 
three-fold;  the  quick-moving  horse  has  been  substituted 
for  the  slow-going  ox,  and  there  has  been  great  improve- 
ment in  farm  machinery  and  methods.  Also,  the  number 
of  people  to  feed  and  provide  with  raw  material  for 
clothing  has  increased  two  and  one-half  fold,  and  there 
has  been  a  vast  increase  of  live  stock  to  feed.  Further, 
the  value  of  agricultural  exports  has  increased  nearly 
five-fold.  Yet  Mr.  S.  N.  D.  North,  a  prominent  super- 
visor of  the  census  of  1900,  states  that  the  annual  value 
of  agricultural  products  in  fifty  years  has  increased  less 
than  two-fold. 

The  same  official  credits  manufacture  with  a  twelve- 
fold increase  in  value  of  products,  though  the  number  of 
wage-earners  had  increased  but  four  and  one-half  fold. 
The  nominal  increase  of  capital  invested  was  seventeen- 


The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer.  27 

fold,  but  the  real  increase  was  far  less,  as  shown  in  above 
chapter. 

This  tremendous  difference  in  gain  in  value  of  prod- 
ucts indicates  a  great  inflation  of  prices  in  one  industry 
and  depression  of  prices  in  the  other.  Further,  accord- 
ing to  Mr.  North's  statements  concerning  agricultural 
gain,  the  value  of  its  products  in  1850  must  have  been 
more  than  half  that  of  1900,  or  not  less  than  $2,400,000,- 
000.  This  would  give  an  average  value  per  farm  of  $1656. 
In  1900  the  average  value  of  products  per  farm  is  stated 
to  be  $822,  not  half  that  of  the  above  figure.  The  two  sec- 
tions of  the  Union  now  showing  the  highest  returns  make 
a  poor  exhibit  beside  that  for  1850,  the  North  Atlantic 
$981,  the  rich  North  Central  division  but  $1074.  Can  any 
one  explain  why  the  farms  of  to-day  appear  to  yield  less 
than  half  the  value  of  what  they  did  in  1850! 

(c)  Under  normal  conditions  where  there  has  been  a 
most  rapid  gain  in  non-agricultural  wealth,  there  has 
been  a  marked  decline  in  the  value  of  agricultural  prop- 
erty (see  chapter  X).  In  the  decade  that  preceded  high 
protection,  1850-60,  the  value  of  agricultural  property 
increased  wonderfully  fast.  The  cause  of  this  evidently 
was  that  the  business  was  so  prosperous  that  there  was  a 
great  demand  for  farms.  This  sent  up  the  value.  In 
1850  the  value  of  agricultural  property  exceeded  the 
wealth  of  all  the  rest  of  the  nation  (chapter  VIII).  In 
ten  years  the  increase  in  value  of  the  former  was  101% ; 
of  the  latter,  158%.  These  ten  years  was  under  the  sys- 
tem of  low  revenue  duties.  Then  followed  forty  years  of 
high  protection.  The  gain  in  agricultural  property  was 
156%;  average  per  decade,  39%.  The  gain  in  non-agri- 
cultural wealth,  803%;  average  per  decade,  over  200%. 
During  the  entire    fifty  years  the    chief    cause    of    the 


28  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

increase  in  agricultural  wealth  was  the  addition  of  new 
farms ;  over  four  million  were  added  in  that  time.  In 
the  North  Atlantic  division  of  states,  where  conditions 
have  been  normal,  from  1850-1900  the  gain  in  agricul- 
tural property  was  nearly  46%  in  the  first  ten  years,  and 
less  than  17%  in  the  forty  years  of  high  i^rotection; 
46%  against  an  average  per  decade  in  the  latter  period  of 
a  little  more  than  4%.  In  the  last  twenty  years  there 
was  an  actual  decrease  in  value  of  total  agricultural 
property  of  nearly  12%. 

How  has  the  average  farmer  of  the  North  Atlantic 
Division  fared!  From  1850-60  the  value  of  the  average 
farm,  with  its  buildings,  live  stock  and  machinery,  shows 
an  increase  of  over  $900;  the  next  forty  years  the 
increase  is  but  $11 ! 

This  division  of  states  comprises  seven  of  the  old  thir- 
teen original  states.  It  is  nearly  125  years  since  the  close 
of  the  Revolutionary  War.  What  is  the  value  of  the 
buildings,  barn,  dwelling-house  and  sheds  of  the  aver- 
age farm!  $1437.  What  is  the  average  value  of  such 
buildings  of  the  rich  agricultural  section  of  the  North 
Central  Division!  $773.  For  the  nation  the  average  is 
$620.  How  far  removed  is  the  average  farmer  of  the 
United  States  from  living  in  a  hovel! 

How  have  the  non-agricultural  classes  fared  during 
the  last  fifty  years!  We  all  know  that  the  manufactur- 
ing centres  have  gone  ahead  in  great  leaps  and  bounds, 
both  in  population  and  wealth.  As  a  specimen  of  the 
vast  increase  in  wealth  in  manufacturing  states,  here  are 
a  few  figifres ;  Wall  Street  state  is  purposely  omitted :  In 
1850  the  estimated  valuation  of  Massachusetts'  property 
is  given  as  over  $573,000,000 ;  in  1904  as  $4,358,000,000 ; 
Rhode  Island  for  the  same  years,  $80,000,000  and  $710,- 


The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer.  29 

000,000;  New  Jersey  from  $200,000,000  to  $2,733,000,- 
000 ;  Ohio  from  $504,000,000  in  1850  to  $5,019,000,000  in 
1904.  Yet  in  this  latter  State  the  vahie  of  average  farm 
buildings  in  1900  was  less  than  $800.  And  while  there 
was  a  gain  in  valne  of  farm  land  and  buildings  of  $319,- 
000,000,  or  89%,  from  1850-60,  the  census  shows  a  loss  in 
such  property  of  $90,000,000  from  1880-1900. 

In  1850  the  wealth  of  the  non-agricultural  classes  of 
the  United  States  was  $3,168,000,000 ;  by  1900  it  had  risen 
to  $73,860,000,000,  or  twenty-two  fold  increase,  while 
the  wealth  of  the  agricultural  classes  for  the  same  tune 
increased  but  four-fold. 

(d)  Labor  and  capital  invested  in  agriculture  paid 
about  half  what  it  receives  in  manufacture  (see  chap- 
ter X). 

In  agriculture  almost  all  the  work  is  done  by  the  farm- 
er, assisted  by  his  family.  How  does  the  pay  received 
for  this  compare  with  the  value  of  the  wages  of  the  work- 
man's familv^ 

We  think  it  will  not  be  questioned  that  the  net  income 
of  the  average  Massachusetts  farmer  is  at  least  equal  to 
that  of  the  average  United  States  farmer ;  it  is  probably 
more.  No  doubt  his  farm  expenses  are  larger  than  those 
of  the  United  States  farmer.  But,  then,  the  gross  income 
of  the  former  is  much  larger  than  that  of  the  latter.  The 
Massachusetts  farmer  is  credited  with  an  annual  gross 
value  of  products  of  $1122;  the  other  of  $822.  The 
average  gross  income  (to  find  net,  deduct  business 
expenses,  interest  and  tax  from  gross)  received  by  the 
farmers  of  the  richest  agricultural  section,  the  .North 
Central,  is  $1074. 

As  near  as  could  be  figured  out  from  the  rather  blind 
Massachusetts  state  census  of  1895,  the  net  value  of  the 


30.  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

average  farmer's  products  of  that  State  was  $416.  This 
was  the  sum  after  making  all  due  allowance  and  charging 
4%  for  property  invested,  including  in  the  interest 
charge  a  dwelling  of  the  value  of  $981.50.  This  is  the 
amount  received  for  the  labor  of  the  average  farmer's 
family.  Besides  paying  all  family  expenses,  this  sum 
must  keep  all  the  buildings  and  farm  machinery  in 
repair,  replacing  the  latter  with  new  when  worn  out,  fur- 
nish a  hired  man  with  board  for  a  portion  of  the  year, 
insure  the  buildings,  shoe  the  horse,  and  pay  taxes; 
that  is,  if  all  exj)enses  are  paid  without  the  aid  of  capi- 
tal, as  is  done  bv  the  workman. 

Is  the  showing  given  by  the  United  States  census  of 
1900  any  better!  Here  the  average  value  of  products 
per  farm  for  the  North  Atlantic  States  is  given  as  $984. 
This  is  the  gross  income.  From  this  must  be  deducted 
$686.64  (see  chapter  X),  which  leaves  $297.36.  This  to 
be  still  further  reduced  by  the  cost  of  the  board  of  a 
hired  man  for  a  portion  of  the  year,  and  the  blacksmith's 
bill  for  shoeing  the  horses.  Compare  this  with  the  wages 
received  by  the  workman  and  his  family. 

In  a  Massachusetts  Labor  Eeport  of  1875  Mr.  Carroll 
D.  Wright  states  that  the  fathers  of  397  families  of 
many  manufacturing  trades  earned  on  an  average, 
annually,  $574.89.  The  boys'  and  girls'  wages  brought 
up  the  income  of  the  average  family  to  $762.72. 

According  to  the  April  number.  World's  Work,  1905, 
the  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  at  Washington,  in  a 
recent  investigation  into  the  habits  of  13,000  persons  who 
live  in  cities  in  thirty-three  states,  found  the  average 
family  income  to  be  $827.19.  This  is  nearly  if  not  quite 
double  'what  the  farmer's  family  has  to  pay  family 
expenses  received  from  its  labor.     That  this  great  dis- 


The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer.  31 

parity  of  reward  has  been  of  long  standing  is  shown  by 
the  reply  of  Mr.  J.  H.  Walker  to  a  Congressional  commit- 
tee in  1878.  He  was  asked  his  opinion  as  to  the  wisdom 
of  putting  men  out  of  work  onto  farms  to  be  given  them 
by  government.  He  said :  ' '  The  wages  of  agriculturists, 
including  the  income  of  small  farmers,  are  not  half  that 
of  the  average  mechanic,  excepting  cotton  and  woolen 
operatives ;  and  as  it  is  a  question  of  wages  more  than  of 
work,  the  average  chronic  beggar  for  work  would  only  be 
insulted,  when,  being  upon  his  land,  he  learned  the  absti- 
nence practiced,  and  work  done  by  small  farmers.'' 

Could  the  difference  of  reward  be  put  in  more  caustic 
language  than  done  by  one  who,  for  many  years,  was  the 
most  prominent  advocate  for  protection  in  Massachu- 
setts ! 

The  Gist  of  the  Situation. 

agriculttjke. 

Here  associated  effort  is  confined  exclusively  to  pro- 
duction. So  far  as  this  has  been  successful,  the  main 
result  has  been  to  throw  a  larger  surplus  on  a  market 
which  for  many  years  has  been  ruinously  overstocked. 
The  inevitable  effect :  the  depression  of  prices. 

Now  the  object  of  producing  is  to  obtain  means  to  pur- 
chase agricultural  supplies.  These  are  chiefly  manufac- 
tured products.  In  selling  and  buying  there  are  inter- 
mediate agents.  But  practically  there  is  an  exchange  of 
products  between  those  engaged  in  agriculture  and  those 
engaged  in  manufacture. 

MANUFACTURE. 

Associated  effort  here  instead  of  seeking  greater  profit 
by  increasing  knowledge  of  the  arts  and  sciences,  and  by 
improved  methods  of  production,  has  done  all  that  could 


32  The  Tariff  and  the  Fai^mer. 

be  done  to  create  a  condition  of  scarcity,  real  or  artificial. 
By  influence  exerted  on  the  general  government  cheap 
supplies  from  abroad  have  been  shut  out.  Taking  ad- 
vantage of  a  highly  favorable  trade  position,  by  various 
devices,  competition  among  home  producers  has  been 
largely  eliminated.  The  combined  effect  of  political 
action  and  associated  effort  has  caused  price  to  be  lifted 
to  a  high,  artificial  level. 

On  such  an  unfair  basis  exchange  has  been  carried  on 
for  more  than  forty  years.  How  could  agriculture  be 
prosperous  under  such  conditions? 

The  Protective  System 

is  not  only  chief  of  the  adverse  trade  conditions  that  has 
caused  the  position,  but  to  a  great  extent  it 

commands  the  entire  situation. 

The  Eesult 

(a)  Deplorable  tenure  of  farm  possession. 

(b)  An  almost  imperceptible  gain  in  total  annual  value 

of  products,  against  most  astonishing  manufactur- 
ing gains. 

(c)  Under  normal    conditions,  where    there   has    been 

most  rapid  gain  in  non-agricultural  wealth,  there 
has  been  a  marked  decline  in  the  value  of  agricul- 
tural property. 

(d)  Labor,  and  capital  invested,  is  paid  about  half  what 

it  receives  in  manufacture. 

Finally, 

the  grreat  monumental 

Eesult 

IS 

That  while  the   business    of    our   manufacturers,  whose 


The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer.  33 

products  are  similar  to  those  of  the  best  paid  labor  in 
Europe,  is  protected  by  the  tremendous  odds  of  a  fifty 
per  cent,  tax;  our  farmers  are  competing  in  Europe,  to 
the  extent  of  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars,  with  the 
poorest  paid  ''pauper  labor  of  Europe." 

The  review  and  summary  of  the  agricultural  situation 
ends  here,  but  there  are  points  in  dispute,  not  strictly 
relating  to  the  farmer,  but  having  most  important  bear- 
ings, of  which  a  few  words  should  be  said.  Not  to  say 
them  would  be  like  an  army  leaving  behind  it  a  fortress 
of  the  enemy. 

We  dispute  the  claim  that  national  prosperity  and  high 
wages  are  due  to  the  protective  system. 

National  prosperity  and  industrial  progress,  we  claim, 
are  due  to  our  unrivaled  natural  resources  and  their 
development  by  the  most  industrious,  enterprising  and 
ingenious  of  all  people.  The  natural  resources  consist 
chiefly  of  the  riches  of  the  soil  and  mineral  wealth.  The 
value  of  these  taken  from  the  ground  in  1850  must  have 
been  over  $2,000,000,000.  There  was  a  steady  rise  in 
value  year  after  year  till  1900,  when  the  figures  stand  at 
$5,800,000,000.  It  is  claimed  that  intensified  farming 
and  scientific  treatment  can  wring  annually  from  the 
earth  twice  or  thrice  what  is  now  obtained. 

Mr.  Carroll  D.  Wright  says,  ' '  The  natural  resources  of 
the  United  States  consist  of  almost  every  species  of  raw 
material  produced  by  or  from  the  earth  essential  to  make 
a  nation  great  in  the  three  lines  of  development — agricul- 
ture, manufacture,  commerce."  Again,  "The  United 
States,  according  to  careful  estimates,  possesses  at  least 
50%  of  the  coal  area  of  the  world.  Our  supply  is  esti- 
mated to  be  equal  to  the  demand  for  1000  years." 


34  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

Mr.  Henry  Gannett,  in  tlie  Forum  of  May,  1902,  gives 
condensed  statements  showing  to  what  extent  the  United 
States  is  supplying  the  world  with  products  drawn  from 
its  natural  resources.  Mr.  Gannett  was  geographer  of 
the  tenth  and  eleventh  censuses,  and  since  1882  has  been 
chief  geographer  of  the  United  States  Survey.  In 
mining,  he  says,  we  produce  34%  of  all  the  iron  ore  that 
is  mined;  34%  of  all  pig  iron  comes  from  our  furnaces, 
and  37%  of  all  steel  comes  from  our  crucibles  and  con- 
verters. Of  gold  we  produce  31%,  silver  33,  copper  56, 
lead  25,  quicksilver  29,  and  zinc  25%.  "Tin  is  the  only 
metal  of  importance  in  the  arts  which  we  do  not  produce 
in  quantities."  Of  all  products  mined  the  United  States 
produces  about  39%. 

Yet  it  seems  this  vast  nation,  producing  a  large  part  of 
all  that  is  required  to  sustain  the  world,  must  be  care- 
fully guarded  from  other  far  less-favored  nations.  How 
could  a  nation  possessed  of  all  this  wealth  of  natural 
resources  be  anything  but  prosperous? 

All  these  almost  inexhaustible  stores  of  agricultural 
and  mineral  wealth  were  in  the  ground  when  the  Indian 
held  sway,  but  there  was  then  no  industrial  progress. 
Nor  was  there  much  for  more  than  a  century  after  the 
white  man  came.  Not  till  the  printing-press  gathered 
from  thousands  of  sources,  and  everywhere  scattered  the 
knowledge  obtained,  did  industrial  progress  make  rapid 
strides.  To  whom  are  we  indebted  for  the  printing-press! 
Primarily  to  the  Chinese?  The  honor  of  inventing  and 
making  practical  movable  types  is  claimed  by  some  for  a 
Dutchman,  by  others  for  a  German. 

The  chief  factors  that  come  next  in  the  line  of  develop- 
ment are  the  factory  and  railroad  systems.  The  latter 
everywhere  opened  up  the  vast  wilderness  to  settlement, 


The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer.  35 

and  was  the  connecting  link  between  the  farmers  and 
those  who  toil  in  the  shops,  bringing  food  and  raw  manu- 
facturing material  to  the  latter,  and  carrying  back  to  the 
farms  clothing,  farm  machinery,  etc.  To  whom  are  we 
most  indebted  for  the  steam  engine!  To  an  Englishman. 
Whose  inventive  mind  caused  steel  rails  to  be  substituted 
for  iron  and  greatly  cheapened  the  cost!  Another 
Englishman.  Who  or  what  greatly  increased  the  cost  of 
building  railroads!  Our  protective  system,  by  the  heav>' 
duties  imposed  on. rails. 

The  factorv  svstem  did  not  have  its  beginning  here. 
Mr.  Carroll  D.  Wright  affirms:  "The  inauguration  of  the 
factorv  svstem  in  the  United  States  was  some  fifteen 
years  later  than  its  birth  in  England." 

Mr.  0.  P.  Austin,  chief  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  of 
the  United  States,  after  giving  credit  to  our  great  rail- 
road svstem  as  the  chief  cause  of  our  wonderful  develop- 
ment,  states  that  "the  value  of  the  manufactures  of  the 
United  States  is  nearly  double  that  of  the  United  King- 
dom, and  about  equal  to  that  of  Germany,  France  and 
Russia  combined." 

Yet  this  giant  dare  not  face  its  weak  opponents  in  the 
open  field. 

The  industrial  situation  cannot  be  better  described 
than  in  the  words  of  Mr.  Henry  Clews'  "Special  Weekly 
Market"  letter  of  Dec.  28,  1901:  "Since  1896  the  growth 
of  our  manufacturing  enterprises  has  many  times 
exceeded  the  growth  of  agriculture,  and  we  are  rapidly 
changing  from  an  agricultural  to  a  manufacturing  nation. 
With  our  magnificent  mineral  resources,  with  unequalled 
facilities  for  transportation,  with  unlimited  supply  of 
capital  to  aid  enterprise,  with  a  better  supply  of  skilled 
labor  than  any  competitor,  with  unrivaled  capacity  for 


36  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer, 

organization  and  the  use  of  machinery,  all  backed  with 
abundance  of  energy,  brains  and  opportunity — with  all 
these  requisites  in  plenty,  is  it  surprising  that  our  situa- 
tion is  the  wonder  and  envy  of  the  world ! ' ' 

Yet  with  everything  in  its  favor,  this,  the  largest  agri- 
cultural and  manufacturing  nation,  is  threatened  with 
bankruptcy  and  ruin  if  its  citizens  are  allowed  to  trade 
on  an  even  footing  with  the  people  of  other  nations ! 
How,  then,  in  the  old  colonial  days,  when  there  was  lack 
of  everything,  and  when  the  English  Parliament  sought 
by  strict  legislative  enactments  lo  crush  out  manufactur- 
ing enterprise,  did  industrial  i3rogress  go  steadily  for- 
ward ! 

Whence  came  the  ability  to  create  the  condition 
described  by  Mr.  Clews  ?  A  large  part  is  inherited  from 
way  back  before  the  first  tariff  act.  In  Bishop 's  History 
of  American  Manufactures  it  is  said  of  the  colonists: 
''They  were  gathered  from  the  most  productive  and 
ingenious  nations  of  Europe. ' ' 

High  wages  are  due  to  the  great  demand  for  and 
efficiency  of  labor.  From  what  has  immediately  pre- 
ceded, it  is  evident  that  the  call  for  labor  in  developing  the 
resources  of  the  nation  must  have  immensely  exceeded 
that  ever  known  by  any  nation  in  any  age.  High  wages 
were  here  before  the  first  tariff  act,  and  were  the  rea?son 
given  for  the  need  of  such  legislation.  The  talk  that 
under  free  trade  wages  would  fall  to  the  European  level 
is  merely  for  political  effect.  For  some  fifty  years  free- 
trade  England  has  been  in  a  few  hours '  sail  of  Germany, 
with  its  far  lower  rate  of  wages.  Have  English  wages 
fallen  to  the  German  level!  No,  and  we  doubt  if  there 
has  been  relatively  any  approach  to  the  lower  level. 

The  United  States   with  its  vast  population  of  80,000,- 


The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer.  37 

000  of  people  has  its  own  level  of  wages.  The  high  level 
is  not  given  by  one  kind  of  occupation,  but  is  the  effect 
of  competition  in  all — in  agricnlture,  manufacture,  trade, 
transportations,  personal  service.  The  service  of  all  but 
manufacture  must  be  rendered  in  this  country,  and  a 
large  part  of  manufacture  also.  Under  free  trade  there 
are  doubtless  a  few  branches  of  the  latter  industry  that 
would  be  lost  to  this  country,  but  if  the  past  is  any  guide 
this  would  be  balanced  by  an  equal  gain  in  foreign  trade. 
How  absurd  it  is  to  believe  that  the  loss  of  say  $300,000,- 
000  or  $400,000,000  worth  of  work  would  cause  a  fall  in 
wages.  That  amount  is  an  exceedingly  small  fraction  t(? 
the  total  sum  earned  by  all  the  people.-  Have  the  mil- 
lions of  emigrants  coming  to  our  shores  caused  a  fall  in 
wages  ?  There  have  not  been  enough  to  supply  sufficient 
help  to  the  farmers. 

Not  only  is  there  a  prodigious  amount  of  work  to  do 
in  this  country,  but  the  means  has  been  provided  by  the 
invention  of  machinery  for  a  very  large  product  per 
wage  earner. 

Mr.  Gannett,  before  quoted,  says  that  the  average  gross 
manufactured  product  per  hand  in  the  United  States  is 
$1900;  in  France,  $650;  in  England,  $485;  and  in  Ger- 
many, $450.  He  adds,  ''This  enormous  difference  in 
efficiency  between  the  artisans  of  the  United  States  on 
the  one  hand  and  those  of  Europe  on  the  other,  which  is 
due  mainly  to  the  universal  use  in  this  country  of  the 
most  modern  machinery  and  methods,  enables  us  not  only 
to  hold  our  own  markets,  but  to  invade  successfully  the 
home  market  of  other  countries. ' ' 

Mr.  North,  one  of  the  directors  of  the  census  of  1900, 
says:  ''It  means  that  the  horse-power  employed  in  our 
manufactures  in  1900  was  equal  in  its  producing  capacity 


38  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

to  the  labor  of  113,000,000  able-bodied  men.  How  insig- 
nificant in  contrast  appears  the  contribution  to  industrial 
wealth  of  the  5,316,802  men,  women  and  children,  the 
actual  average  number  of  persons  employed  in  the  cen- 
sus year  to  direct  and  supplement  this  tremendous 
power." 

The  following  statement  is  found  in  Mr.  Carroll  J). 
Wright's  ''Industrial  Evolution  of  the  United  States": 
"Looking  at  this  question  without  any  desire  to  be 
mathematically  accurate,  it  is  fair  to  say,  perhaps,  that  it 
would  require  from  fifty  to  one  hundred  million  persons 
in  this  country,  working  under  the  old  system,  to  produce 
the  goods  made  and  do  the  work  performed  by  the  work- 
ers of  to-day  with  the  aid  of  machinery."  Number  of 
workers  5,316,802. 

The  people  of  the  United  States  have  been  frightened 
for  many  years  by  a  vision  of  the  dire  effect  of  losing  a 
little  work  to  the  foreigner  under  free  trade  conditions. 
We  have  given  an  idea  of  the  value  of  products  of  agri- 
culture and  manufacture ;  we  add  something  in  regard  to 
the  value  of  the  free-trade  exchanges  that  take  place 
inside  the  United  States.  Senator  Greorge  F.  Hoar  at 
Concord,  Mass.,  in  1900,  put  it  thus:  "An  internal  com- 
merce that  thrusts  into  insignificance  all  the  foreign  com- 
merce of  the  world. ' ' 

In  Mr.  James  Gr.  Blaine's  book^  a  more  definite  state- 
ment is  made:  "Fifty-five  millions  of  people  carry  on 
their  exchanges  by  ocean,  by  lake,  by  river,  by  railroad, 
without  the  exactions  of  the  tax-gatherer,  without  the 
detention  of  the  custom-house,  without  even  the  recogni- 
tion of  state  lines.     In  these  great  channels  the  domesti< 


1  (( 


Twenty  Years  in  Congress." 


The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer,  39 

exchanges  represent  an  annual  value  perhaps  twenty-five 
times  as  great  as  the  total  of  exports  and  imports." 

The  rate  of  duties  from  1850-60  were  from  50  to  100% 
lower  than  under  the  Dingley  tariff.  Did  foreigners 
crowd  our  producers  out  of  the  home  market?  The 
crushing  answer  given  by  the  census  is :  ' '  The  value  of 
our  manufactures  increased  85%  that  decade.''  Since 
then  there  is  strong  evidence  that  the  rate  of  wages 
abroad  has  risen  relatively  more  than  in  the  United 
States.  The  far  greater  use  of  machinery  here  than  in 
foreign  lands  has  nearly,  if  not  quite,  put  our  manufac- 
turers on  an  even  footing  in  all  branches  with  their  for- 
eign rivals. 

Is  tariff  coddling  conducive  to  industrial  progress? 
The  85%  gain  in  value  of  manufactured  products  under 
the  low  duties  of  1850-60  does  not  indicate  it.  Under 
high  duties  the  gain  from  1870-80  was  but  27%;  from 
1880-90,  74.5%,  and  from  1890-1900  only  38.8%. 

Mr.  Carroll  D.  Wright  says :  ''It  is  a  curious  fact,  well 
known  to  those  familiar  with  patents,  that  depressed 
periods  often  result  in  the  stimulation  of  invention."  He 
then  goes  on :  ' '  During  the  last  twenty  or  thirty  years  of 
the  period  ending  with  1860  there  were  patented  some  of 
the  most  important  inventions  of  the  age."  This  period, 
with  the  exception  of  from  1842-46,  is  the  time  of  lowest 
rates  of  duties  way  back  nearly  ninety  years. 

The  noted  writer  on  economic  subjects,  Mr.  Francis  A. 
Walker,  quotes  with  approval  this  statement:  ''It  was  an 
axiom  of  the  late  Mr.  John  Kennedy,  who  was  called  the 
father  of  the  cotton  manufacture,  that  no  manufacturing 
improvements  were  ever  made  except    on    threadbare 

profits." 

We  turn  now  to  the  hard  times  of  1893-97.    In  the  lat- 


40  The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer. 

ter  year,  when  the  Dingiey  bill  was  being  constructed,  the 
two  Eepnblican  leaders,  Mr.  Dingiey  in  the  House  and 
Mr.  Aldrich  in  the  Senate,  agreed  that,  owing  to 
'^changed  conditions,"  less  protection  was  required  than 
at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  McKinley  bill  in  1890. 
The  Senator  said:  ^'The  bitter  contest  that  is  going  on 
among  the  leading  nations  of  the  world  for  industrial 
supremacy  has  brought  about  improvements  in  methods 
and  economy  of  production  to  an  extent  not  thought  pos- 
sible a  few  years  ago."  Is  the  industrial  gain  credited 
to  "protection"  by  this  man  who  has  led  the  protection- 
ists many  years  in  Congress!     No,  to  bitter  contest/^ 

What  said  Mr.  Archer  Brown  in  the  Forum  Magazine 
of  November,  1900,  of  this  same  time :  ' '  The  trials  of  the 
lean  years  following  the  panic  forced  economies  of  manu- 
facture and  modernizing  of  plant  to  a  point  that  excited 
the  admiration  and  wonder  of  rivals  of  other  nations." 
Again:  "Let  us  glance  at  the  marvelous  record  of  our 
progress  since  the  iises  of  adversity  taught  us  how  to 
make  the  cheapest  iron  and  steel,  thereby  opening  up  the 
markets  of  the  world. '  ^ 

The  Forum  says  of  Mr.  Brown:  "He  has  been  closely 
identified  with  the  movement  for  the  export  of  iron,  and 
has  spent  several  months  in  Europe  studying  conditions 
and  organizing  business  there;  is  director  of  a  number 
of  leading  iron,  steel  and  coal  corporations,  also  director 
of  the  North  American  Trust  Company."  A  man  so 
engaged,  occupying  the  positions  he  did,  should  best 
know  the  facts  of  the  situation. 

The  story  is  told.  The  little  book  goes  forth  on  its 
mission.  It  is  believed  to  be  the  only  publication  in  the 
world  that  gives  a  comprehensive  view  of  the  bearing  of 


The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer.  41 

the  protective  system  upon  the  agricultural  industry.  It 
can  no  longer  be  said  that  the  case  of  the  farmer  against 
the  tariff  has  never  been  formulated.  Here  it  is  made 
evident  that  of  all  men  the  American  farmer  is  the  great- 
est sufferer  by  the  system.  In  comparison  with .  the 
injury  done  him,  that  received  by  the  foreigner  is  insig- 
nificant. Here  is  shown  the  cause  of  agricultural  unrest; 
it  is  the  unprofitableness  of  the  industry,  the  direct  effect 
of  the  protective  system. 

Now  the  question  is,  can  farmers  be  roused  to  thought 
and  action,  which  means 

Commercial  Freedom, 

or  will  they  continue  to  be  led  like  ''dumb-driven  cattle'' 
by  those  who    profit    by  their    stupidity,    and    forever 

remain  in 

Commercial  Bondage? 


The  Tariff  and  the  Farmer 

TERMS 

For  Larger  Edition 

One  Copy 

$.50 

Five  Copies  to  one  address 

2.00 

Condensed,  Popular  Edition 

One  Copy       -           -           -           - 

$.25 

Five  Copies  to  one  address 

1.00 

Ten  Copies  to  one  address 

1.50 

Money  must  come  ^vith  order 

Address  S.  Payson  Perry 

Worcester,  Mass. 

Box  754 

I 


i»AS^j.  ■.^mvitiioj'iii,tit^jBttT^ 


ift  f^ 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  50  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.00  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


ii^H  24  1937 


,D  18  ^9^^^ 


JAN  n  194a 


toAK  i>4  ..43 


YC  b7P27 


272198 


H  / 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAIylFORNIA  I^IBRARY 


